Kinder eggs are banned in the US...but guns aren't!

Because a person can kill 59 people and injure a further 527 in the space of a few minutes with a bat, rope or knife can't they?

Given a crowd? If I were to guess, they could do the same thing with a truck, or gasoline and manure. Just based on what people have done historically like at Nice in France.

So because people can kill hundreds with a truck, it makes sense to allow millions of guns?

What type of logic is that?

Clearly motor vehicles have an eminent benefit and use to a society that firearms do not.

Actually, a well-armed populace acts as a check against tyranny.

Do you feel that the leadership of the the US is so unimpeachably noble and honest that they would never lead the current populace down the road to fascism, tyranny or something else equally bad?

Actually, a well-armed populace acts as a check against tyranny.

Do you feel that the leadership of the the US is so unimpeachably noble and honest that they would never lead the current populace down the road to fascism, tyranny or something else equally bad?

Firstly why are Americans so much more paranoid than anyone else? We don't have guns in the UK and funnily enough the population don't worry about this impending tyranny from the government.

But even if the American government were planning to lead the population to a place of tyranny, what good would guns do when the government have tanks and nuclear weapons?

Should everyone be allowed to have a tank and their own nuclear weapons?

Simo Häyhä killed 542 Soviets in Finland by himself just with sniping and his total kill count with other weapons edged it up over 800. You might not have been aware of this, but the Soviet Union also had tanks.

He could have just as easily done it with a truck and a pile of manure though right?

I don't know. Let's ask Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:

"Hey, mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. How many people did you manage to kill using vehicles?"
"3000."
"Cool, cool. Is that more than 800?"
"It is."
"Wow. Thanks for that, man. I was confused."

Right, so why the need for guns?

I don't know if you're asking this because you really don't know.

Do you know the difference between the need for directed vs indiscriminate violence? Like if Bob said something I didn't like and I responded by punching your grandmother in the face, that would not be very useful at dealing with Bob, right?

Can you clarify where you're confused about the difference? I don't want to be condescending so I need to know where you're confused.

Ah right, so guns are more dangerous than trucks and manure then. hmm

I'm extremely confused about most of what you've come out with mate, like aren't you against drug legalisation? None of it makes any sense, you just seem extremely paranoid. Go ahead and be condescending if you think it will help, i just can't get my head around it.

Oh! You actually don't know the difference between directed and undirected violence.

A gun allows you to take aim at the thing that is oppressing you. A bomb does not.

So if you were guaranteed to kill 1 random person somewhere in the world every time you pressed a button, you would have to remember that there are 7.442 billion people in the world. In order to statistically be likely to kill the person who was oppressing you with undirected violence would require you press the button billions of times with billions of deaths.

Compare that to a button that would kill a specific person. You would have to press it once.

So, here is my argument:

1) You don't like deaths, right? Murder is bad.

2) Undirected violence result in more deaths to achieve the same effect as directed violence.

3) More deaths is more bad than less deaths. Because more of a bad thing is worse than less of a bad thing.

Now, I need to know that you're with me so far. Are you keeping up with the logic so far? There's more to this, but I don't want to confuse you.

So this is about reducing the death count in the event of an uprising against a tyrannical government?

Certainly partly. It also acts as a buffered protection against events like that happening in the future or, in the case of Finland, invasion by a foreign power.

A well-armed militia is one of the first things that get tossed by tyrannical governments. See India under British rule, Germany in the Weimar republic just before Hitler.

Our society hasn't evolved past those points. The US in particular is exhibiting balkanization suggesting it's on the verge of falling apart. Spain and the EU show similar signs of fraying.

If we're taking on the US government the death count is going to be massive either way, seems more than a little odd to be so concerned about the potential death count in this unlikely future scenario but not much at all about those being killed right now.

Isn't it possible to have a well-armed militia without having a free for all on guns?

Okay, couple of points here:

1) I'm not American. I live in the UK.

2) I'm going to go out on a limb and say you are probably aware that nuclear weapons have a splash effect, but what you said suggested you don't know that. So I will try to explain: Nuclear weapons have a splash effect and using them on your own populace would result in massive damage to your own food supplies and infrastructure and are unlikely. As a for instance: Donald Trump is in the White House when an armed insurrection starts in Washington, DC. He nukes Washington, DC. He dies, too. Or poisons the breadbasket around him that provides him with food.

3) You also sound like you don't understand how an armed insurrection works. Simo Häyhä killed 542 Soviets in Finland by himself just with sniping and his total kill count with other weapons edged it up over 800. You might not have been aware of this, but the Soviet Union also had tanks.

4) The US has a history of strong dislike and distrust of centralized government. It is cultural and ingrained in a large part of the populace.

Does that make more sense? I can actually point out several hundred points in history where a better armed professional military were unable to overcome fewer, worse armed insurrectionists.

This guy purchased all his weapons with ease and legally. He bought adaptors that turned them into automatic weapons, also legally.

He purchased semi-automatic rifles, not automatic rifles, Argue the morality of the bump stock all you like but the law is crystal clear on the matter, they are not automatic rifles.