I did not embarrass myself at all with that. If someone was foolish enough to try to extrapolate what I was not saying from what I was saying then not only is there no embarrassment nor need to counter a position I never made in the first place but they have only their own foolishness and any embarrassment THEY feel?
But I will not judge you unfairly just yet. I have no idea if this is what you are trying to do. (As unwise as it may be in inviting me out of just one thread that I have contained nastier disagreements with you). So please explain Odeon, nicely
No one extrapolated anything. Your post is below. Why don't you explain what your point was if we all got it so very wrong. It's meaning looks clear to me.
To me it looks like you're saying that banning bombs didn't stop bombs going off therefore there is no point to gun control because it's a mental health issue.
Britain has been a victim of bombings from at least IRA conflict. I remember there was a spate of them, including on a double decker bus, some years ago. I remember not long ago little kids were blown to bits in a popstar concert.
No this issue is not solved. There is not the same bombing instances or culture in UK.
We thankfully know that if we ban bombs and make them illegal there wont be any more bombings. That is what they shoyld do.
If they have done this, then we may have to reassess the notion that banning weapons that potentially causes death and/or controlling it will not prevebt bad people from doing bad things and ignoring illegaility.
Maybe preventative measures and better mental health services and such is better than banning weapons from decent people who would not abuse them and bad people who will any way?
Of course it may be reasonable to do a bit of both but I wonder whether goung to "ban them ban them" as people have a wont to do, is the reasonable course of action
Bad people will do bad things and will not be put off by making something illegal.
So IF criminals and mentally ill people are NOT allowed to have access to weapons BUT get access to them anyhow despite the rules ALREADY in place. Then the gun control rules will likely make not the slightest bit of difference.
It will NEVER be the case that UK will be 100% protected from its citizens being bombed by a bad or crazy person AND likewise the US is not likely to ever be free from the danger that someone may do another mass shooting.
BUT if we accept all the above, UK has shown that it is prepared to look outside the box in a number of preventative measures and re-educating people as to possible dangers.
US should look at enforcing existing rules better so people do not get missed or fall through cracks and whatever and likewise better educational efforts about gun risks to gun owners
LOL What a clown!
....and removing guns or preventing them from getting into the hands of the criminal and the mentally ill.
Will it stop it entirely? Nope. Will it make a real difference? Yup.
BIG question.....is it viable and practical? YES. (Hint: suggestions for gun control are not viable or practical because they cannot get passed in Congress and this is evidenced again and again. Democrats REALLY want them passed but they cannot get passed. So suggesting them as a viable and/or practical suggestion would be stupid).