There was another shooting in the US on the weekend. An 11 yo boy used his father's gun and shot dead the 8 yo girl who lived next door (as you do) because she wouldn't let him play with her new puppy.
I was part of the debate the other day about the Oregon shooting. My argument was that as we have not had a mass shooting for 2 decades since Howard's tighter gun laws were introduced that the US should do the same.
IE Less guns = Less gun violence.....Maybe I am simple but that seemed to make good sense to me.
However several posters here assured me that I was an idealist who was hopelessly wrong and that in fact more guns is the answer so that people can protect themselves against the bad guys and that Howard's policy, despite NO mass shootings in 2 decades, is an utter failure. Not sure how that logic works but there ya go. So please humour me now for a moment while I seethe with anger and ooze sarcasm.......
So now you pro gunners please tell me what was the correct answer in this case?? Do we start arming 8 yo girls with guns (in the name of self protection) so that they can take out any pesky 11 year olds who might be trying to shoot them?? Personally, I would just take the guns off everyone so that no one gets shot....not any 8 year olds or 11 year olds.....but that's just me and I am the first to admit that I do have my quirky little ways of looking at things.
Oh well, one thing that you pro gunners have going for your team is that Donald Trump, a man who is potentially the next president of the United States is on your side. He has come out in support of the "more guns is than answer" side of the debate. God help us all. If the next leader of the free world has such a hopelessly misguided and cavalier policy on personal firearms then how would he be as commander in chief in charge of the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world??
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-06/us-boy-kills-eight-year-old-girl-over-puppy/6830398
