I am glad...

I am sure that the OP did not mean it, but the thread topic "I am glad" sounds to me so pathetic and selfish. Imagine saying this same thing to the victims' family !!!

I am sure that the OP did not really mean it, but the phrase "I am glad" sounds so pathetic and selfish.

Imagine saying the same thing to the victims' faimlies?

Were it not for his/her high ranking in the Naim forum hierarchy, I'd be very tempted to classify Florestan as a troll. The last few posts of his certainly seem to fit such categorisation. He delights in writing detailed, yet somehow lacking and unjustified, inflammatory responses. I admire Winky's tenacity, but he'll never shake such fundamentalist views.

Huge posted:

Florestan posted:

<snip>

Do you in Britain just normally sit back or run the other way if you were involved in some sort of terrorist attack or saw someone getting mugged etc.  In most cases, this is the markings of a coward - someone who doesn't care about others so long as it doesn't involve themselves in any way.
<snip>

 

Tell that to to brave men and women who attempted to fight of the terrorists or who came to peoples aid despite the attackers still being at the scene in the haymarket in London, this country has a great tradition of standing up to bullies and of coming to the aid of those in need.

Bob the Builder posted:

this country has a great tradition of standing up to bullies and of coming to the aid of those in need.

 

Does this apply to when Tony Blair accepted the fake documents from USA to attack Iraq without a word of perplexity or rejection, and when British people come in flocks to help us in Lampedusa, along with French, German and of course Americans, with the thousands of desperates who land daily in the world's indifference?

Nothing personal, but please let's connect brain with dignity before doing proclaims.

M

Max_B posted:

Bob the Builder posted:

this country has a great tradition of standing up to bullies and of coming to the aid of those in need.

 

Does this apply to when Tony Blair accepted the fake documents from USA to attack Iraq without a word of perplexity or rejection, and when British people come in flocks to help us in Lampedusa, along with French, German and of course Americans, with the thousands of desperates who land daily in the world's indifference?

Nothing personal, but please let's connect brain with dignity before doing proclaims.

M

Max, I think Bob the Builder was talking about ordinary members of the public fighting back at terrorists as an example to refute Florestan's assertion. Nothing more.  

Timmo1341 posted:

Were it not for his/her high ranking in the Naim forum hierarchy, I'd be very tempted to classify Florestan as a troll. The last few posts of his certainly seem to fit such categorisation. He delights in writing detailed, yet somehow lacking and unjustified, inflammatory responses. I admire Winky's tenacity, but he'll never shake such fundamentalist views.

Someone else expressed this in terms of chips on shoulder...

Florestan's posts in this thread are wholly consistent with his posts in some other threads (e.g. the now defunct Trump one). I have concluded that politically and maybe socially his views and mine (and it seems those of many others here) are so poles apart there can be no understanding. Presumably that is due to our undoubtedly very different upbringings and backgrounds.

But on the hifi front, considering music and desire for and appreciation of its reproduction, I find a lot more commonality and reasonableness, and his posts contribute in a vastly different way, and seem to be more appreciated (though of course we all have different tastes and preferences). Maybe that is a good common ground to which we should all fall back when things get heated, take a deep breath and start again...

Always so easy to come up a couple of negative instances in a nation's history - 'cheap shots' is the term used by most to describe them. If I had as much time to waste on this forum as some others I would find it just as easy, probably in a ratio of 10:1, to dig up instances in support of Bob's assertion. 

From someone recently exhorting the rest of us to silence, instead of penning views which may upset the sensibilities of others, this smacks a little bit of 'do as I say, not as I do'

For your info, I believe Bob was referring to the UK citizenry rather than its government, but probably felt it so obvious he didn't need to explain that.

winkyincanada posted:

Florestan posted:

Hmack posted:

A question for anyone on this forum, but particularly for Florestan.

Take away the issue of the right to bear arms in the US Constitution and assume that individuals will retain the right to bear arms. Take away the issue of your own personal Nationality and your location, because this question applies to any country in the World, and not just to the United States of America.  

My question is:

Does anyone on this forum think it is a good idea to allow individuals (based anywhere in the World) the right to openly and legitimately purchase and collect automatic and semi-automatic assault weaponry and ammunition?

That is really the only question at issue here. If anyone here really believes that individuals should retain the right to purchase weaponry of this sort, then I think a number of us on this forum would like to understand how you can justify and rationalise your belief? It makes no sense at all to most of us.

Yes, I do understand that there are so many weapons of this type in circulation in the US (and in many other countries in the World) that a ban on ownership of such weapons would be difficult to enforce. However, with an amnesty it would be possible to at least reduce the number of such weapons, and surely it can't be argued that a reduction of automatic weapons, and a curb on the legitimate sale of new weapons of this type isn't a good thing.

Yes Florestan, it is true that a crazed individual with the appropriate knowledge and skill-set can construct a viable explosive device and wreak havoc and devastation with that device. However, this fact does not lend itself to an argument that we should legitimise the sale of ready made explosives and bombs to make it easier for that individual to fulfil his or her goal.

Are you prepared to answer this question, or are you just content to continue to attempt to justify your reactionary posts by your repeated groundless assertions that anyone who does not conform to your viewpoint is anti-American.  

HMack, I'm not actually sure what your question is?   No, I don't think semi-automatic weapons should be legal or available.  Automatic weapons are already illegal but these guys know how to make one apparently.

As I said, this all is a question I personally struggle with too.  I am not a gun advocate nor a hunter and don't ever intend to be either.  I don't even like to think about it but given the reoccurring events that seem to be happening on a regular basis it does challenge me and hopefully you as well to think beyond some binary response.

There are certain places in the world and cities that I can understand why owning a gun is realistic.  I am only talking about those who are sane and have only the best interest of their family in mind (ie. for protection or to protect your loved ones).

Do you in Britain just normally sit back or run the other way if you were involved in some sort of terrorist attack or saw someone getting mugged etc.  In most cases, this is the markings of a coward - someone who doesn't care about others so long as it doesn't involve themselves in any way.   1.)    What? I can't even begin to fathom what sort of point you're making here.

What is most amazing to me in seeing many survivors interviewed in Las Vegas is how many heroes there are (in addition to the police and first responders.)  I'm talking about civilians who may have some sort of training or background to help out in a second and will step in front of a bullet to help someone else.  These are the type of people I want as my neighbours.  These are people I have respect for.   Yet here, it is one big smear as if all of Americans are gun toting lunatics.      2.)      No, it isn't You're interpreting it that way.  The majority are good, admirable and decent people.

How many times has a civilian been able to stop a criminal from killing more people because they had a gun to stop this sick criminal before the police could arrive?             3.)    This is vanishingly rare. It almost never happens. Under these situations, 5 or 10 minutes is like an eternity to wait for help to arrive.  Can't really do much with a bobby stick or taser against someone with a knife, gun, or vehicle, can you.

I don't like to think about this but ask yourself what you would do if you came home and an intruder had a knife to your wife or daughter's throat while he raped her?                   4.)    This is an idiotic strawman argument. Would you wonder how to increase gun control ?  Would you reason that criminals have their rights too and all he needs is a hug and that rehabilitation will help him reintegrate back in to society as a productive individual?      4.)     What? What are you even talking about?

Sad to say but most people in the US who own a gun I am sure have thought about some hypothetical situation and asked what would they do.  Most people will never have to use it but the common thread is that it is for protection for them and their loved ones only.  Who are we to judge someone for this?     5.)    We can judge their judgement. The chance of them actually ever using their gun for self defence is vanishingly small. The chance that they, their family or friends will end up being shot by the gun is actually much higher.

It is the small group of bad guys that everyone needs to focus on and condemn.  As a community, if you see something (or hear something), say something, is imperative.  We all have to be aware and help each other out.  I am sure that most of these big events it will come out that someone knew what was going to happen or knew or assisted in the plan.

 

Let me help you Winky,   

1.)   Read the previous paragraphs for context. 
         - for the majority of US gun ownership (of sane, law-abiding citizens) it is about personal protection (for themselves, for their family, for a stranger who may need help)
          - Britain has gun control, even to the point of not allowing police officers to be armed
          - all British, law-abiding citizens are then presumably also are not armed with a gun
          - my honest question then followed.  How do British people protect themselves and other's in harms way?  With their bare hands?  I can only imagine that unarmed (no gun) police officers and unarmed citizens face a decision when confronted with a criminal (who probably has a weapon of some sort).  Would you confront a criminal with a weapon with your bare hands?
          - in the Las Vegas incident, I heard of many stories where in these events the real heroes stand up and run into the face of danger.  Most of these were current or ex- service men/women, off-duty first responders, off-duty police, fire, or some related field.  I heard of everyday people giving their gun to one of these people to they were able to do something if the opportunity happened.
         - even in the USA, if one presumes that say 10% of the concert goers in Las Vegas were experienced gun users and have some critical training in knowing what to do in incidents like this that is quite an instant assistance to the real police and first responders who obviously are outnumbered.
         - I didn't mean to imply that every should be or can be a hero but I do wonder if the responses by everyday people is the same between countries given the nearly polar opposite philosophical views on guns and protecting yourself.

2.)    My interpretation was given no leeway to come to any other conclusion than I had been fed in  the opening post which clearly referred to "a country [USA] of gun-crazed lunatics with short tempers.

3.)   This is not vanishingly rare.   I stated this just based on common sense but it can be backed up quite rigourously.  One example:

"Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year"

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

Argue all you want against gun control.  What is the ratio of police to the population generally?  1 per 100?  1 per 1,000?  1 per 10,000?  Varies from place to place, I'm sure, but to have to wait for a police officer or first responder to do 100% of the work is obviously not effective when seconds count.  Assistance by the anyone in the public is what makes the difference.  I said it repeatedly, but these people who can do this are nothing short of heroes.

4.)   This was a hypothetical but is not a strawman issue as any criminal act I could have picked is equally disturbing and wicked.  Change it to something else and then answer the question.  It doesn't matter as in a hypothetical of you or someone in your family or a stranger being violated, the question remains - what would you do with your bare hands against someone who is obviously prepared and armed?

The last part of the paragraph is again a question asking for you to confirm your ideology.  If you believe in gun control (giving a possibly armed criminal against a totally unarmed population) then you have little chance in a situation.  Maybe gun control is a backdoor way to protect criminals?   Read the link in point 3.  Most criminals are afraid to break into a house of a gun owner for fear of the ultimate consequence.

5.)   Everyone's judgement is simply an opinion (including mine) so it remains open for debate.  Again, refer to the link in point 3 to challenge your assumption that self defence is inconsequential.  

There has always been criminals but one would hope that the majority of people are law abiding citizens.  It also stands to reason that the majority law abiding citizens need to be the secondary defence against the small but dangerous group of bad people.

I will concede that nothing with these types of scenarios is perfect.  It is predictable that mistakes can be and have been made but I would propose, as you say, that the errors are vanishingly small and given the positive results in the majority of time and the benefits in the majority of time that this is an acceptable trade-off.

Everyone needs to stand up for and be thankful for the police and related services that help and protect us.  When some percent of a sane society can contribute in some part (either directly or maybe by gathering/collecting information as a witness and turning this in) things will get done and improve.

"Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year"

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

This is perhaps not surprising, given the number of armed people roaming the US. There are 147 times as many armed civilians as there are police. Do you feel safer?

Difficult to look at today's America without thinking "my goodness - there's a country becoming great again."

Oh no, wait...

winkyincanada posted:

"Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year"

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

This is perhaps not surprising, given the number of armed people roaming the US. There are 147 times as many armed civilians as there are police. Do you feel safer?

Let's do some more maths. The US's 800,000 police kill about 1000 people per year (a pro-gun site claims 11% of these are innocent, but let's set that aside for now). What this effectively means is that the average police officer draws their weapon and kills someone only every 800 years, on average.

OK, so by your stats,  the armed citizens kill 2000 criminals every year. 37% of the populace of 300 million is armed.  Let's just say 10% of these people consider their guns as a means of self defence and would potentially shoot to kill (to exclude gun owners who have guns solely for hunting, rather than self defence). This means that there are about 11 million armed citizens ready to take out criminals if required. This means the average gun owner who has a gun for self defence would shoot and kill a criminal once every 5,550 years on average.

I'd contend that a frequency rate of once each 5,550 years is indeed "vanishingly small". The case that one should get a gun for self defence on the basis that one could kill a criminal if required is VERY weak. (Having a gun and using it as a deterrent against is admittedly much more frequent, but still pretty rare)

I note that gun owners do deliberately and accidentally  shoot and kill themselves and other non-criminals at a rate of about 30,000 people per year.

And yet, Florestan, look at the figures showing how many people are killed by guns (per 1000 population) in different countries.  Those with gun control have far fewer.  Not surprisingly.  If lots of people were armed, and responded to a shooting such as at Las Vegas, what are the chances that some of those armed people will (accidentally or mistakenly) shoot people other than the original assailants?  The fact that the police in the UK (amongst other places) are not armed is one of the reasons that most criminals are not armed either.  The fact that the police (and many citizens) are armed is probably one of the reasons that criminals go armed.

The big problem in America (in this regard, at least) apart from the gun lobby is that there are so many weapons out there.  It will be very hard to get rid of them, and until most are removed then it will be difficult to persuade gun owners to give them up.  

As for automatic weapons - it seems crazy that, though automatic weapons are not legally sold (AIUI), it is perfectly legal to buy and retro-fit a device that turns a semi-automatic weapon into an automatic one, for not much money.

And your  paranoia regarding negative ideas about America is showing, where you (mis)quote:

 in  the opening post which clearly referred to "a country [USA] of gun-crazed lunatics with short tempers.

The original post did not mention the USA - I took it to mean any country of gun-crazed lunatics with short tempers.  It is you that have interpreted this to mean, specifically and uniquely, the USA.  If that is your opinion of the nature of your country I can only bow to your superior knowledge.  

rodwsmith posted:

Difficult to look at today's America without thinking "my goodness - there's a country becoming great again."

Oh no, wait...

rodwsmith, what?  I can't even begin to fathom what sort of point you're making here?

...Oh, I get it now.  Ha ha.

Let's see.  Since 1971, there were 530 terrorist-related deaths in Great Britain.  Five terrorist attacks in 2017 alone.

And just how is the UK less difficult to look at in terms of problems than the US?  

Beachcomber posted:

...

And your  paranoia regarding negative ideas about America is showing, where you (mis)quote:

 in  the opening post which clearly referred to "a country [USA] of gun-crazed lunatics with short tempers.

The original post did not mention the USA - I took it to mean any country of gun-crazed lunatics with short tempers.  It is you that have interpreted this to mean, specifically and uniquely, the USA.  If that is your opinion of the nature of your country I can only bow to your superior knowledge.  

Beachcomber, I would have to assume that you are the only person that read the open post and did not conclude that this was directed at America?

I didn't write that post so it is not me to say.  It is up to the original poster to tell the truth and confirm if he had a particular country in mind or meant, as you say, 'any country.'

Personally, I don't know how you could come to such a defence as the original poster lives somewhere (presumably the UK).  If he was talking about 'any' country it could also include the UK or the country this person lives.  Why would he be glad to live in a country that he is directly referring as being among gun crazed lunatics with short tempers?

Florestan posted:

rodwsmith posted:

Difficult to look at today's America without thinking "my goodness - there's a country becoming great again."

Oh no, wait...

rodwsmith, what?  I can't even begin to fathom what sort of point you're making here?

...Oh, I get it now.  Ha ha.

Let's see.  Since 1971, there were 530 terrorist-related deaths in Great Britain.  Five terrorist attacks in 2017 alone.

And just how is the UK less difficult to look at in terms of problems than the US?  

Average population of GB 1971 - present approx 58M
Deaths by terrorism in this period 530
Death rate by terrorism 530 / 58M / 46 = 0.2μMort

Average population of the USA 1971 - present approx 271M
Deaths by firearms in this period >1.5M
Death rate by terrorism 1.5M / 271M / 46 = 120μMort

Ergo the gun problem in the USA is more than 500 times worse than terrorism in the UK.

Florestan you are an apologist for a crazy policy.

Supporting the right of Americans to bare arms!

Florestan,

As the original poster, I will say AGAIN (see my much earlier post where I made the point) I did not refer to any individual country. To repeat myself, I said I was glad I do not live in a county of gun-crazed lunatics with short tempers. Either your paranoia is getting worse or you have an over active sense of patriotism. Patriotism is a strong drink and, like any such libation, should be taken in moderation.

In addition, if you think that the British are cowards in a terrorist situation, I suggest you take this up with a Scotsman called John Smeaton, I'm sure he would disabuse of the notion in his own way...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Smeaton_(born_1976)

steve

winkyincanada posted:

winkyincanada posted:

"Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year"

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

This is perhaps not surprising, given the number of armed people roaming the US. There are 147 times as many armed civilians as there are police. Do you feel safer?

Let's do some more maths. The US's 800,000 police kill about 1000 people per year (a pro-gun site claims 11% of these are innocent, but let's set that aside for now). What this effectively means is that the average police officer draws their weapon and kills someone only every 800 years, on average.

OK, so by your stats,  the armed citizens kill 2000 criminals every year. 37% of the populace of 300 million is armed.  Let's just say 10% of these people consider their guns as a means of self defence and would potentially shoot to kill (to exclude gun owners who have guns solely for hunting, rather than self defence). This means that there are about 11 million armed citizens ready to take out criminals if required. This means the average gun owner who has a gun for self defence would shoot and kill a criminal once every 5,550 years on average.

I'd contend that a frequency rate of once each 5,550 years is indeed "vanishingly small". The case that one should get a gun for self defence on the basis that one could kill a criminal if required is VERY weak. (Having a gun and using it as a deterrent against is admittedly much more frequent, but still pretty rare)

I note that gun owners do deliberately and accidentally  shoot and kill themselves and other non-criminals at a rate of about 30,000 people per year.

Winky, with some sarcasm I was showing you that your statement that implied citizens so rarely ever step in to serve justice.  If that link was accurate it served to show that indeed citizens end up defending themselves and using a gun fatally far more than do the police themselves.  This only means, citizens are the ones who are there at the moment.  Police usually takes minutes or longer to arrive at an incident.

There is something to defending yourself and your family or to help some stranger.  Perhaps, in Britain you just put your hands in your pocket or run?

I know you have difficulty answering a hypothetical again as before but just from a logical point of view I see that everyone is severely centred on 'gun control' and the unfathomable number of guns in existence in America.  I have already alluded to this example previously and no one understood, so let me restate it.

In the list below, homicides in the US in 2015 were 4.9 per 100K.  Rapes (those reported) are listed at 38.6 per 100K.  These are the two lowest listed crimes.  If everyone's head is exploding over a 4.9 homicide rate and can think that the only solution is to gather up all the guns, throw them in the deepest pit and then ban guns (create an expensive bureaucracy to control something more) THEN for all the other crimes with a much higher rate of incidence it stands to reason that something should be surely done about them too?

By the same logic, why is no one insisting that all male anatomy be removed to eliminate the incidence of forcible rape?

If you believe that removing all guns will reduce the crime rate then I have a bridge in New York that I should sell you.

4.9 homicides out of 2,487 total (reported) crime is a vanishingly small number.  I would say it is pretty hard to hide a homicide from a statistic.  All the other crimes are probably underreported.  If you are concerned about the health of country, yes, be concerned about the homicides, but I would say the much more serious problem is with all the other crimes combined.  

I repeat.  Guns, penises, hammers, bombs etc. do not commit these crimes.  The evil begins and ends within a man's heart though......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...in_the_United_States

Paper Plane posted:

Florestan,

As the original poster, I will say AGAIN (see my much earlier post where I made the point) I did not refer to any individual country. To repeat myself, I said I was glad I do not live in a county of gun-crazed lunatics with short tempers. Either your paranoia is getting worse or you have an over active sense of patriotism. Patriotism is a strong drink and, like any such libation, should be taken in moderation.

In addition, if you think that the British are cowards in a terrorist situation, I suggest you take this up with a Scotsman called John Smeaton, I'm sure he would disabuse of the notion in his own way...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Smeaton_(born_1976)

steve

 

 

My apologies steve.  I know you did not state a country.

What spurred you to look outside the walls of your safe little island to worry about gun-crazed lunatics with short tempers in some unnamed country outside of the UK?

Huge posted:

Florestan posted:

rodwsmith posted:

Difficult to look at today's America without thinking "my goodness - there's a country becoming great again."

Oh no, wait...

rodwsmith, what?  I can't even begin to fathom what sort of point you're making here?

...Oh, I get it now.  Ha ha.

Let's see.  Since 1971, there were 530 terrorist-related deaths in Great Britain.  Five terrorist attacks in 2017 alone.

And just how is the UK less difficult to look at in terms of problems than the US?  

Average population of GB 1971 - present approx 58M
Deaths by terrorism in this period 530
Death rate by terrorism 530 / 58M / 46 = 0.2μMort

Average population of the USA 1971 - present approx 271M
Deaths by firearms in this period >1.5M
Death rate by terrorism 1.5M / 271M / 46 = 120μMort

Ergo the gun problem in the USA is more than 500 times worse than terrorism in the UK.

Florestan you are an apologist for a crazy policy.

Supporting the right of Americans to bare arms!

Huge, unfortunately, it can be misunderstood that I am defending the gun toting lunatics as they have been so affectionately referred to here but this isn't really fare.  As I have said, I have no real opinion on the matter and do not own a gun nor probably ever will.  I personally don't ever hope to be in a situation where guns are involved.  But then this is the same sentiment I have towards ALL crime.

However, as you may remember from past discussions that also unfairly attacked me for my views, I personally find it odd to gang up on someone for defending a viewpoint.  Although I personally have no reason to defend this I will, simply because I believe in personal choice.  In the case of firearms, it is a constitutional right for Americans.  End of story.  Yes, maybe they should ban semi-automatic guns.  I do agree with everyone that military style weapons should all be banned.  But for law abiding citizens, it is their right to be able to protect themselves.

Unfortunately, after something like Las Vegas, the learning will come afterwords.  Hopefully, they will be able to find guys like this before they carry out any evil deed.

I know you disagree but I don't believe big government is the solution to this or any problem.  Not for gun control, not for telling me to drink an extra large slurpy, not to wear a seat belt, not to kill the unborn or a child, not to tell me how to raise my child etc.

They can educate me (like telling me that it is sensible to buckle up or to eat healthy) but the ultimate decision is mine.  I would also fight for my right to bare arms or covered arms.  Doesn't matter.  

Florestan, it would seem that you have some difficulty understanding what appears to me to be fairly simple English.  The original quote was clearly not saying he is glad not to be living in 'any' country (which would be absurd - we all live in some country or other), for the sentence qualified it with the rider concerning "gun-crazed people with short tempers".  Of course there have been some few such in the UK as well as in other countries, but I took it to mean - correct me if I am wrong - countries where there is a significant number of people who find gun ownership to be a very important part of life, some of whom seem to have short tempers, or an abiding hatred for some of their fellow country people.  That, I contend, is a (small) proportion of all ('any') countries, but is more than one country.  I don't understand how you flip from "any country of gun-crazed lunatics with short tempers" meaning specifically the USA to "any country of gun-crazed lunatics with short tempers" meaning all countries.

Adam Meredith posted:

Florestan

 

There is something to defending yourself and your family or to help some stranger.  Perhaps, in Britain you just put your hands in your pocket or run?

I would add - I'm glad not to live in a country were a large proportion of the population live in a state of fearfulness and poorly directed anger. Oh, and have easy access to guns. 

In this instance you may take it that I mean America. 

Adam, I know you are far too smart and clever to have empathy which is rather sad.  Terrorist attacks in UK or France are not considered notable unless it hits you directly or maybe someone close to you?  I rather doubt that wherever you live in paradise that it is crime free?

Are you suggesting that cleansing the world of guns will rid it of evil?  I would like to see a world free of guns but at the same time I am also not foolish enough to believe that this will change a whole lot (other than the method of the crime). 

Also, Florestan, I note that you do not address the much lower rates of gun-related crimes in countries that don't allow guns.  Do you not think that significant/interesting?

To reiterate.  I am not here to defend guns.  I simply think that the focus on one country and type of weapon is missing the point.

I do not understand how anyone here can point a finger to a certain country while defending their own.

Please read an article in regards to a certain 'gun free' country and two notable quotes below.  Look at all the guns weapons that should be banned....

There has been a 20% surge in gun and knife crime. 

The 26% rise in the homicide rate to 723, an increase of 149, cover the 96 cases of manslaughter at Hillsborough in 1989, which were included in the annual figure as the inquests were finally concluded. Without the Hillsborough deaths, the number of homicides rose by 9%.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk...se-crime-in-a-decade

Are you still glad?

Crime is everywhere.  Have some empathy.  Because you were never affected by it does not mean you never will be or that it doesn't exist in every country to varying degrees.  

Florestan,

I made no assertion that you were "defending the gun toting lunatics", again you misquote me and twist my actual words for your own purpose.  What I said was "Florestan you are an apologist for a crazy policy.", and that is a statement with an entirely different meaning.

There was one instance in the past where I misinterpreted your words - and for that I apologised.  You on the other had denigrated me several times and did not apologise.

Again you seek to deflect attention from an uncomfortable truth that threatens you entrenched position by raising a topic that's completely irrelevant to the point under consideration.

If you want to argue against gun control either disprove my statistics or show why 500 times the death rate is a similar order of problem.  You tried to equate the two I've shown the flaw in your argument - your move.  If you want to be taken at all seriously keep to the subject of the argument; rather than trying to deflect it onto other unrelated areas.