The Sandy Hook school shootings were carried out with a point-223-caliber Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle (with a 30 round magazine) but the perpetrator also had a 10mm Glock semi-automatic pistol, and a 9mm SIG Sauer P226 semi-automatic pistol.

All were legally-owned, by the perpetrator’s mother (so, technically, these could be classed as ‘stolen’)—-Hmm, he murdered his mother so they could technically be called stolen, wow, ya think eh?

The perpetrator of the Virginia Tech shootings on April 16th 2007 used a Walther P22 semi-automatic pistol and a Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol to kill his thirty-two victims. Both were bought legally by the perpetrator (despite existing gun-control laws regarding those with a history of mental-illness).—- Good reason for passing more laws that only the legally abiding citizens are controlled by.

The perpetrators of the Columbine High School shootings on April 20th 1999 were armed with a 12-gauge Savage-Springfield 67H pump-action shotgun (fired 25 times), a Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9mm carbine with thirteen 10-round magazines (fired 96 times), a 9mm Intratec TEC-9 semi-automatic pistol (fired 55 times) with one 52-, one 32-, and one 28-round magazine and a 12-gauge Stevens 311D double-barreled sawn-off shotgun. Thirteen people were killed with these weapons which, although gun-control laws were broken, the perpetrators purchased rather than ‘stole’.—- [COLOR=”#800000″] How Firearm(s) Acquired

Robyn Anderson, a friend of Klebold and Harris, bought the shotguns and the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine. Because Anderson purchased the guns for someone else, the transition constituted an illegal “straw purchase.” Klebold and Harris bought the TEC-DC9 from a pizza shop employee named Mark Manes, who knew they were too young to purchase the assault pistol, but nevertheless sold it to them for $500.[/COLOR]

OK, the point of your post is?

If you do not know that “reason” is a verb as well as a noun you need both a better education and a better dictionary than the one you have quoted from.;)

Eh boobie, (see previous post above) reason as in logic is a verb.

reason
verb
1 [transitive, intransitive] reason (that…)| + speech to form a judgement about a situation by considering the facts and using your power to think in a logical way

Now you were saying about education?

The US is more likely to want to invade other countries for personal gain. Look at how much trouble the US had with Iraq and Afghanistan. The only reason why anyone would think Russia or China would bother is because of the simplistic thinking that everyone is worse than the US. Meaning if the US bites more it can chew, everyone else has to be more stupid.

Now go take your pills and sit quietly in the corner.

Chill Mr C. It’s wasting your breath. (Bandwidth)

It’s like trying to reason with children when you want to take their toy away

Haven’t you learned anything over 43 pages?

Moggy

Reason?– LOL
reason
noun

1.
a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.

Logic
a premise of an argument in support of a belief.
2.
the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

I have seen no justifications for the odd to paranoid attacks against the 2nd Amendment or U.S. gun laws, as they already exist, for not being strong enough.
Logic has been replaced with rationalizations,( in the style of if an orange is round, all round things are oranges) not any solid reason to support the anti-firearm rhetoric.

At the very best your children remark is the pot calling the kettle black.

Yes, but you would say that, wouldn’t you, since you perceive that your opinion is different from mine.
My experience is that those not in favour of guns will be accused of not understanding the arguments of those in favour, and of running the argument down by repeatedly bringing up massacres of innocents.

What is your point.

Massacres have zero to do with gun control, except as a chicken-little tool to try to scare the ignorant or paranoid public that they occur simply because guns exist.

Liberal voters have so, so, so much sympathy for the survivors of those murdered by the human trash that commits such murders but they they go and spend just as much time trying to stop murdering SOBs from getting their just rewards on death row.

Hypocrisy at its best, as it seems they do not give damn about the survivors of those murdered by those on death row.

One end of the political spectrum in the United States seems to be 100% in favour of the population arming themselves with whatever weapon they feel the need for and the other end of the political spectrum seems to be only about 99% in favour!

That tiny 1% difference ought not to be a problem except for the near hysteria and fear-mongering that goes-on if anybody were to suggest (after a school shooting-spree for example) that maybe even being 99% % in favour of the population arming themselves is a bit much and maybe 98% would be a better position.

The problem for those of us in the United Kingdom is not that we do not understand gun-ownership; it is that we do not understand the, almost pathological, distrust and fear many citizens of the United States seem to have for their own government.

That makes no sense, just what are you speaking of?

Since you have never played COMMAND, nor understand the level of detail and time invested in this tool your statement about the simulation being “worthless” carries little weight. I will add that several military and civilian think tanks are evaluating COMMAND as a planning aid for modeling future conflicts. It is that good.

Perhaps you should do a deeper investigation before you make snap judgments.

Yes people who sit behind desks and play war but have never been on a battle field watching their brothers die or go home horribly crippled.
The R. Strange McNamara type warriors that get people killed out of arrogance and ignorance.

Yes, so isn’t the ‘argument’ that: any attempt at gun-control is actually a disguised attempt by a tyrannical government to disarm, then round-up its political opponents and put them in concentration camps…

…something of a ‘straw-man’ argument?

Depends on the type of government in power.
Depends on the dogma followed by the persons in said same government.
Depends on how said same government defines gun control.