Reply to post: Re: @Adelio

Re: @Adelio

Hence legal as I said

and rare.. As *I* said..

"So the many who would not use it for ill are banned from them because of a few people who would"

Yes. Like explosives - or driving. Its not just about intent, its about competence. Take lockdown/Covid restrictions as another example.. The idiots messing things up for the many is why we can't have nice things.

"Except of those who would already do"

Correction: *Some* of those who would already do. This is the point I keep making (and you keep ignoring), illegal guns are just not as easily available as you keep making out. That's a good thing.

So coming back to the tight regulation leaving the undesirables misusing guns but getting in the way of legal ownership and use.

*Some* undesirables misusing guns. 0.01% of the population (as referenced earlier)

I can't tell if you genuinely have that level of fear and paranoia, or if you're just parroting stuff you heard on the internet. Critical thinking skills do not seem to be your strong suit.

Your conclusions being poor enough to pull apart

Really? Where? You keep overstating how easy it is to illegally get a hold of guns (refuted through statistics), whilst complaining about "overregulation"..

any poor excuse for your belief.

Like you trying to make out that every criminal who wants a gun, has one? You're funny.

"claimed terrorist attacks would be 'different' (I think you mean worse) if guns were more available"

Then gave 3 concrete examples of attacks that did not have bombs, and would have been worse if guns were as easy to get hold have as you say.

Except you concede that bombs are more popular

Bombs are used 'as well as', not 'instead of'. Household chemicals can be got hold of. Knowledge on what to do with them is less easy to come by without ending up on a watch list. Getting hold of guns depends on location. Explosives are good for one and done, but there is a reason soldiers carry assault rifles. I could link to any number of attacks where both were used, or just guns (how many active shooters so far this year in the US?), but you don't care.

Then forgetting how wrong you were

Because you don't think 'active shooters' are a thing? It happens *so often* in the US that their schools do *drills* for it! That is messed up!

Duh, we already discussed this

Really? Where? You spouted a load of crap ignoring facts and reality, but that's just you continuing to be wrong.

Then you try to argue that guns are not normal.

By using the govs own figures, yes. 1%

Except you conflate this somehow with crime which is stupid.

Where? I added the offence figure to the number of gun users because *you* keep going on about all these criminals with guns. I used *actual figures* to show that its almost negligible. 0.01% of the population. 3% of homicides. Low figures thanks to our gun laws (and enforcement).

Somehow trying to compare legal gun stocks in the US to a single confiscation by police of illegal guns in the UK.

Yep. Comparing the general levels of availability between the UK and the US. Do you think those nice legal guns are somehow not available to criminals in the US? That's where you contradict yourself. You seem to think saying the word "legal" stops them being used in crimes. Then you admit that criminals don't care, but then those legal guns somehow don't count(?) or are not comparable to guns that criminals use(?) .

The single confiscation in the low double digits being heralded as the *largest ever* because of their *lack of availability* in the UK. In the US guns are generally available (state laws permitting), in the UK they are not. Unless those UK sporting gun shops you mentioned are breaking the law by supplying guns to people without firearm certificates? Or the nice 'legal' owners of firearms are, in fact, *gasp* supplying criminals!? That might call for even tougher laws! (Nah, I recon we've got the balance about right)

I quote this stupidity

I attempt to be charitable to your position by acknowledging that we *both* will have had different life experiences as to what we think is normal. The difference is that *I* defer to actual facts and data. You, it would appear, don't care about such pesky things...

while somehow thinking terrorists are different?

Whilst there is an overlap, jostling with other gangs day-today for control of an area is *very* different to being strongly motivated to plan and prepare and attack one specific target over weeks/months/years. A gang member could spend years getting into many altercations with varying levels of violence. A terrorist martyring themselves only gets to attack once.

At no point do I need to argue with your figures,

The figures show that guns in the UK are not the norm. That undermines quite a lot of what you've said. You keep trying to refute it without addressing the underlying fundamental truth. If you had figures about how many at the gun club are cert holders vs not you could give alternative numbers. But the best you have is "plenty". Here, let me help you. From the gov report I posted earlier:

In the year ending 31 March 2019, 2,016 people were covered by individual or group visitors’ permits for firearms, representing a 6% increase of 120 compared with the previous year. In the same period, there were 7,177 people covered by individual or group visitors’ permits for shotguns representing a 0.7% decrease of 54 compared with the previous year

Sooo that would be an extra 0.02% of the population. I'm surprised myself how low that figure is. If you have a source for other figures fell free to come back with them. Otherwise you are just chatting shit without evidence.

Its the old climate denier schtick "There is no credible evidence" *presents evidence* "That isn't credible" ad nauseum.