Summations Only

Nicely stated. It was only two months ago when a three year old in the same state shot and killed a one year old without inflicting even the slightest harm to himself.Some of these year olds have mad skillz. Why doesn't the press play up that angle?

That's right, Hombre. No body reports how many babies didn't kill themselves or somebody else with a loose-about readily available handgun, rifle, bazooka, hand grenade. So the fact that 100 babies died is of no consequence, no concern. Hell, that number could be 1000 dead babies or 10,000 or 100,000 dead babies and it still wouldn't matter cuz we just don't know how many babies aren't dead, yet.The number of dead babies is of no concern as long as you get to be a gun nut.

You're ignoring the dynamic which is sad.Americans, as a group, have a collective love affair with guns. That guns are unnecessary for a safe, free and (broadly) happy society is patently true, as a result of any number of such societies in Europe and Australia, where private gun ownership is severely restricted. It's that collective love affair which is the only real reason for such widespread gun ownership.Tragic deaths like this and thousands of others are utterly inevitable with so many guns around, and us humans being the imperfect people we are. Sure, you can point the finger at "negligent" parents, but only if you yourself are utterly perfect, and never make any mistakes.As a result, innocent lives have to be sacrificed, as the price for people's collective love affair. Everyone who loves their guns, should be saying to themselves every morning: "Today, (and ignoring every other avoidable death) two children will die in gun accidents. To their parents, brothers, sisters, grandparents, family and friends I say: your sacrifice is worth it, because it preserves my right to my guns."

Um, I might suggest that if America were ever disarmed along with all those safe, free and happy societies you are talking about, they might cease to be safe, free and happy because of the implicit invisible protection of an armed America. Remember Americans sent guns to unarmed Brits when there was worry about Germany occupying the country. If that safety you are so sure of turns out to be illusory you might kick yourself in the end for encouraging us to give up our so-called "collective love affair."I'd also point out the fact that is so conveniently discounted, that some Brits and Australians rue the day they gave up their guns because of the enormous increase in crime they've suffered since. Oh but I suppose that didn't really happen, right?ABE: Not to forget or discount the points made about accidents. They're tragic and maybe many could be prevented with a carefully orchestrated safety campaign. I don't know, but I'd rather not exchange the likelihood of tragic accidents for the certainty of mass murder by the next world dictator to rear his ugly head.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Utter crap, crime has fallen by 66% since the mid 90s - as it has in all of the developed world.It's also total bullshit - not to say an outright lie - that Brits and Australians rue anything at all about giving up guns. We're extemely proud of it and grateful for the increased security it has given us.

Funny how liberals simply have no awareness of the conservatives among them, the ones with the sense of reality who DO rue the day.

Erm, you are aware that I'm talking about guns in the hands of civilians, yes ? And that it was the American army which came across and joined in the wars. (Along with our, properly armed army). This seems odd to have to say, but I think it's appropriate that a modern democracy's armed forces should be, you know, armed.

I'm talking about American civilians sending handguns to British civilians against an invasion by German troops on the ground.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Utter crap. You know that even our police patrol unarmed except in special circumstances and always have done?There is absolutely no public demand for privately held arms. Any 'conservative' saying such a thing would be laughed at. It's beyond impossible.Of course, you'll have plenty of evidence of your assertions - that is beyond googling desperately for a quote from a nutjob.

I have no idea what odd rabbit hole we've jumped down here - but it was the British armed forces (alongside the American, Canadian, Australian and a number of others) which fought the German army - not British civilians. The civilians weren't armed (outside of an official Home Guard, which was an adjunct to the army).

And you're inventing a bogeyman; which is even sadder. Do we arrest the brewmaster for your drunk driving? Only in your fantasy. What a nave load of crap.You might as well apologize to all the children who get beaten to preserve your right to wear a belt around your pants; or to all the people who will die in car accidents to preserve your right to drive; to everyone clinging to life or worse from a bad case of alcohol poisoning to preserve your right to throw one back at the end of the day; and on and on it goes...Your logic is just ridiculous.But that's your problem.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

That's the point, they were unarmed and sitting ducks for an invasion. Americans sent them guns for personal protection, which fortunately they didn't need.I thought it was better known:
Guns to Brits in WWII
I wasn't intending to make a big deal out of that, though: the main point I wanted to make is that as long as Americans are armed we are less vulnerable to invasion ourselves, and if we were invaded we probably wouldn't have a lot of fighting power left to help out all the "safe, free and happy" disarmed nations across the pond.

Yeah, it's a real embedded cultural symbol. Pandering to that phony frontier machismo puts money in the pockets of gun manufacturers and distributors.I had no idea until after the Sandy Hook massacre that there are people in the USA, otherwise sane and functioning adults, who nonetheless have to have a loaded gun within arm's reach 24-7. Their reaction to incidents where armed assailants kill people in public is simply to have everyone armed, full stop. As you'd expect, they characterize any recommendation for tighter controls on guns (like background checks and waiting periods) as being fueled by paranoia. Obviously talking to such people about a tradeoff between personal freedom and the safety of the community is useless.Edited by MrHambre, : No reason given.

On one hand, you're right: Another innocent loses their life because Americans have handguns.
On the other hand: You don't live here and our problem with guns doesn't, in any way, affect your life. Stay the hell out of our business and we'll stay out of yours. You cannot compare anything that happens in this Country to yours, which only has about 1/5 the number of people.
You also don't have 11 million invaders living in your Country.
You also have fewer transportation inlets which can allow terrorist access to your little island.Sorry, I said I'd keep out of your business ... but it's so small!

We can charge the bartender.