Summations Only

Not convinced I've seen vast numbers of Hollywood films which portray the sorts of things Mr Hambre was mentioning - Hollywood does tend to go the opposite way, romanticizing gun use. Just think of Dirty Harry, Red Dawn, Lethal Weapon etc etcWhen every statistic, every bit of critical thinking, every datum supports the view that guns cause more harm, death, injury and loss than they prevent, what is it that causes such a visceral desire to have and keep guns, in the intelligent, responsible human beings you describe ?

Whereas the reality is that a massive army isn't going to show up as long as America has the world's most powerful armed forces ( only just - their sophistication and capabilities still just outweigh Russia's and China's greater manpower).And nukes, of course. Lots of them.The idea that armies don't invade the US because of the citizenry having some privately owned firearms is risible. Honestly, it really is. That line of argument does nothing to promote your cause - it is lunacy of the most gibbering order.

This story seems to be creating something of a buzz:Texas university students in dildo protest over gun law - BBC News

It's all part of the same pro-gun narrative - line up as much as you possibly can to blame, apart from gun ownership. In this case, Major Fore seems to be suggesting we blame the victim.

Oh I've no doubt that it's sensible not to get involved in altercations if you can avoid them. And I take your point that we don't know the context of the remarks.But we've moved away from (for example) examining how short a rape victim's skirt was, because we recognise that the question introduces an attribution of blame to someone other than the scum who did it.I get the impression that the pro-gun movement is all too happy to throw blame absolutely anywhere other than guns - including onto victims. I think that's a narrative we should constantly challenge.

Yeah, but those are all other people's toddlers, Dr A - they don't count :-/

Dog named Trigger shoots owner in the foot - BBC NewsThere is clearly only one possible response to this situation: all dogs must immediately be armed ! (With muzzle loaders, naturally).That way, whenever a good dog sees a bad dog about to shoot its owner, the good dog can kill it first.It's the only logical and rational response to this tragedy.(Oh, and more animal psychologists too, to help tackle the root cause of mentally ill animals).

A dog walks into a saloon, blood dripping from its front leg. It looks round at the cowboys, rustlers, gamblers and townsfolk with an air of menace, and slowly drawls "I'm lookin' for the sunnabitch who shot ma paw !"

No, we don't wish we had the second amendment.We've had healthy, vibrant and active Muslim communities in Europe for decades, and despite some isolated (albeit tragic) attacks by minority wackos, there has never been any call for us to suddenly arm ourselves to the teeth in gibbering fear. We're made of sterner stuff.

An absence of gibbering fear does not equate to a failure on the part of the security forces to take precautions. Are you suggesting a binary choice between no preventative action at all, and arming all citizens ?

Just some SAMs around the key targets in Washington...America's Capitol Is Guarded By Norwegian Surface-To-Air Missiles(I have no idea how reliable this is as a source, but the language used is measured, and it obviously makes sense, in the context of taking sensible precautions)

Yep, quite happy with that.I'm less a cynic, than a skeptic, when it comes to our body politic. Hell, they have their faults, but in this case, I don't believe those faults extend to anything more sinister than trying to ensure no one flew a plane into the Olympic crowds.

Yeah, it's fun to live in a world where we don't live life by absolutes, isn't it ?Which means we compromise. So at one extreme, we don't put the entire country under curfew and armed patrol, to protect from the arseholes who like to blow people up in the name of their religion. And at the other extreme, we don't stand back and do nothing and make life nice and easy for them.Judgment call and question of degree, every time. So, anti-aircraft capability at a prime terrorist target such as the Olympics - I think that's a sensible call. Canadian Girl Scouts at a checkers tournament ? Less of a terrorist target, so lower precautions. Makes sense to me.

PS Where did I write this ?

The anti-aircraft capability exists already - we just lugged it upstairs to a roof or two. If that constitutes a "staggering financial cost", then I'm quitting my job and going into removals service for the military ! Those boys must make a killing !