Multiple shot dead by Florida gunman

That is not what will happen though the bad guys will still get guns and events like the Minnesota mall stabbing would of been a lot worse as the good guy who stopped it wouldn't be able to stop it.

You seem to think making something illegal means it won't happen

The bad guys don't get hold of guns anywhere near as much here do they?

Should we not ban possessions of grenades or tanks then because bad guys will just end up getting them anyway?

Your initial point was that the airport would be safer if everyone had a gun. That's ludicrous.

What about the nightclub in Florida? Would that be safer if everyone had a gun? Hundreds of drunk people in a crowded club with guns, what could possibly go wrong?

Do you not care about someone's right not to be knocked over?

Once agin Britain isn't exactly comparable to the USA.

You can buy a tank in the uk but nice try.

There is a reason that public mass shootings happen in areas guns aren't allowed.

Yes it would have been safer not ideal but when someone who wants to commit mass murder turns up I would rather have someone to stop them, like what happened in Minnesota where the only person who dies was the attacker

You have to leave your utopian vision and see the real world.

Such a typical, tenuous point.
Of course I do. Which is why I support the strong enforcement of road safety laws and favour sanctions for those who break them by driving too fast or dangerously.

It's also why I favour things like traffic lights.


You've made some truly awful analogies, but that one tops the lot.

It's funny you have claimed:
That you care about people's rights so much you want to remove them
That the only way to top people being shot is banning guns and opposed being stricter with the current laws yet you believe that enforcing laws can stop road deaths.

You do not like guns so you are applying a double standard

Well, that's just anti-Americanism, isn't it?

From the point of view of the pro-gun people, this is something enshrined, not in law, but in the constitution of the country. It's not a option or a privilege, but a right stemming from the foundation of the nation. That's compelling stuff. This isn't like changing the speed limit on the motorway, it's major constitutional stuff.

From a practical perspective, they would also say - the US is a very large country with many very remote rural areas - how do people in these areas in very remote locations protect themselves from crime and violence when calling the police isn't practical?

My cousin and her boyfriend left the airport just a short while after the shooting began couldn't imagine what would have happened if they stayed any bit longer.

It amazes me that there are NO flags for mentally disabled people carrying firearms in airports, or in general. I'm not a fan of repealing the second amendment or anything, but the lack of proper control is ridiculous.

My cousin and her boyfriend left the airport just a short while after the shooting began couldn't imagine what would have happened if they stayed any bit longer.

It amazes me that there are NO flags for mentally disabled people carrying firearms in airports, or in general. I'm not a fan of repealing the second amendment or anything, but the lack of proper control is ridiculous.

Don't be silly. Everyone knows that the answer to gun crime is more guns.
If only everyone in the airport had a gun then everyone would have been much safer.

Just as if everyone in nightclubs had guns, then everyone would be much safer.

I used to think that the cause of gun crime was guns but apparently i'm wrong and the real cause of gun crime is not enough guns...

I've thought about it from this perspective before, but what about if there were no guns in the hands of these crazy people in the first place? There would have been no bloodshed.

More guns in the population = greater chance of them being misused.

Had he been diagnosed with a mental illness? I know he went to get an evaluation but if he hadn't been diagnosed they couldn't stop him as it would have been a civil rights violation

I understood he had gotten a mental evaluation and was discharged from the military for "unsatisfactory performance", I don't know if he was diagnosed with anything though. That's an important point to consider I hadn't thought of; with the current system that is probably what made purchasing the gun possible. I just think his past encounters should have raised more concern/further investigation when he purchased the firearm.

THANKYOU. FINALLY SOMEONE WITH COMMON SENSE.

I've been debating with people on here who are adamant that the solution to gun crime is to give everyone a gun. They seem to think airports would be safer if everyone there had a gun.

They think ngihtclubs would be safer if everyone there had a gun.

I remember after the Sandy Hook massacre, gun enthusiasts argued that the teachers should have guns. Oh well that's a great idea, bring deadly weapons into classrooms full of children. What happens when a teacher goes crazy and they have a gun? The gun enthusiasts would then probably say that the problem was that the children didn't have guns.

No matter how many people are murdered by guns. No matter how brutal the massacre, the response of gun fanatics is always 'we need more guns!'.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
I'm also confused as to how whenever there is a mass shooting, the answer is apparently 'more guns!'

I always thought that the 11,000 gun related deaths a year were because people had guns. How silly, apparently it's because there aren't enough guns.

If you make the declaration that guns are for shooting people and only people then all those things must be people, the subset "is a person" of the set of "all things on earth" is the same as the set, or certainly an incredibly large sub set of.

I thought those people run over last year were run over because people have cars, shall we ban cars? Clearly hatchets need banning too, there is no need for a hatchet and they are definitely used to kill people. Isn't it odd that of all the tools used to kill people the only one anybody wants to restrict is guns, they will sit back and ignore the other 80%, and act as if somebody didn't have a gun there would not be the deaths, especially when suicide stats get thrown into the mix to try to inflate numbers. Suppose I wanted to kill my mother and didn't care if I were caught (so that removes a need to think it through to avoid being caught and/or found guilty), if I had a gun a would straight up shoot her, easy even if messy, but not having that gun doesn't stop me, like most I know plenty of ways to kill people without a gun, the simplest would be to walk downstairs and get a knife, or to strangle her, or try to provide for an overdose of a highly toxic readily available drug, which has the added bonus of the potential to frame as suicide. Not having the gun does not stop the crime, it changes the mechanism.

Or how about telling us about what has happened in places like the UK, Ireland, Jamaica, and Australia when it comes to crime rates and rates of crimes using firearms since restrictions have been brought in (I'll give you a hint, at best you get nothing).

And if you compare homicide rates, or gun homicide rates, to gun ownership across the world (or just the richer parts of it to lessen the socioeconomic effects) you're going to find, at best, no strong correlation. While the big spikes in the following graph are the likes of Honduras, the wealthier data points have to throw into question the hypothesis that more guns=more crime, palces like Norway have the same homicide rates as those like Japan despite having gun ownership orders of magnitude greater:


And it seems that literally your only defence against the statement "almost all rampage shooting incidents are in gun free areas" is to say that if nobody legally had guns it wouldn't happen (even though you know that to be false)

I agree, there are a few problems with the system here, I think that most other states this wouldn't of happened but alaska has the second loosest gun laws in the USA.

Had he been diagnosed with a mental illness? I know he went to get an evaluation but if he hadn't been diagnosed they couldn't stop him as it would have been a civil rights violation

This is so sad but true

They'd advocate having child-sized guns for all the children to protect themselves against the other children with guns.

The logical solution would clearly be to carry a gun to protect yourself against every other person in society with a gun.