Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
no it ONLY makes it an equaliser when the other person is armed
I am guessing that you have never been in a serious bar fight with a serious bar fighter. Nor been in a fight where there were several people attempting to hurt you. Then I expect that you would find that gun does in fact make it more equal even when the other person is not armed.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
your argument would work if you only laoowed the weak and defensless to be armed, is that the case?
Hardly. Equal means equal, it doesn't mean superior.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
cant they? why not? what exactly stops thyour govenment being in a law preventing space exploration? of stating that everyone must pay healthcare insurance or not pay healthcare insurance
Nothing. There is however a specific reason why they can't pass laws against guns. That is why it is different.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
you are the one thats saying a document writtren 200 years ago is perfect and cannot be improved on
Wrong. First, it is your claim not mine that gun laws are an improvement, not mine. Second I have specifically said several times that there is a specific way in which gun laws could be allowed or even required. It would require that enough people wanted that. And that methodology is specifically built into the constitution. But the people do not want that. Not even close. And, again, because the US is a democracy the people get to decide that.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
I have been saying why not restrict ownership to liciensed and fully trained individuals, as the NY shooting shows this would not be a CURE but it would however reduce the problem,
There is no evidence that is true. Actually there is evidence that suggests it isn't true, since Chicago has some of the strictest (and potentially illegal) restrictions and yet has one of the highest crime rates associated with guns.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
As it is gun crime is out of control, if nothing is done it WILL reach a point in which the majority will say enough is enough and a ban will happen
The first is your