Reply to post: Re: @Adelio

Re: @Adelio

"Which seems moot as they use varying means worldwide regardless of the laws. We covered this.". .. Which is why they roll up with bombs.

Bombs are only part of the story, as stated in the other post.

You seem to think that because some terrorists favour bombs, our gun laws don't work/matter? Utter drivel

Yet violent crime is generally reduced by wider availability of guns.

Citation needed. After all, Afghanistan and Iraq are such peaceful places.

"Had they used bombs they could have killed/injured more"

You seem to be implying that because they *could* have used bombs, making it easier for them to have guns would have been... fine and dandy? Worth the risk? Countered in other thread (School shootings). Stop trying to use bombs as a justification that giving greater access to *your* favoured method of killing things is anything other than a terrible idea.

facts you dont refute

I have refuted them. We seem to be writing replies while the other is answering the previous post.

I will add that trying to limit the conversation to terror attacks is quite blinkered. That said, do you want me to link to terror attacks that used guns? Its not like they are difficult to find.

My issue isnt with data, its with the bollocks you seem to interpret from your beliefs that you seem to think somehow relates to the data.

and yet you tried to imply that the number of gun users in the UK is much greater than the figures suggest. Sounds like you have a problem with the data to me.

Left handedness is also not the norm, yet there 10 times as many left handed people as gun users in England and Wales. *shrug* If you consider 1% to be normal, perhaps you also consider the estimated 1% of folk who are Trans to be equally normal? I've certainly met more Trans folk than gun users..

So its ok to use a knife to kill someone but not a gun?

Your cretinry is getting tiresome.

So per state (each having their own gun laws) how do they compare?

Dunno, you haven't given any figures, or cited any sources, but while you are there, how do you suppose each individual state compares with the UK per capita?

Interesting you equate not believing someone should be terrorised by multiple burglaries (10 wasnt it?) as a bad thing? That I think his defending his property from repeated attacks as the police refused to do anything about it is somehow me fantasising about killing people.

Defending ones property does not require someone to be killed unless there is another life at stake. There wasn't. It is matter of public record that the court ruled that there wasn't. Yet he shot at them - as you imply you would have done. That act was ruled to be murder. By a court of law.

When I asked you if you thought they were fair game "duck hunt style", you said 'Yup'. That's not my projection, that's your admission.

The only reason the charge was reduced to manslaughter was on the grounds of diminished responsibility. What would your defence have been? Feel free to say you misspoke and that you didn't mean to imply that you would kill (murder) the lad... But I don't think you will.