Sure you can have a gun - you can have a car too. Where in your constitution does it mention registration, shooting licence, age limits, background checks and the like for guns?
The united states constitution makes no mention of such firearm-related restrictions. The united states constitution does not make mention of a great deal that is occurring in the present day and age, many of which outright violate it both in terms of letter and spirit, but which are deemed justified and allowable by activist courts who believe in revising the united states constitution to allow for any manner of governmental abuse and/or overreach imaginable. That point aside, none of the above statement on the part of yourself has any relevance to what is being discussed. It does not even attempt to have relevance. It is nothing more than a desperate effort to try and change the topic of discussion to avoid having to address previously established points. Points such as the belief that Stephen Paddock would have been reduced to nothing more than knives if firearms had not been available, because he somehow would not have been able to fly his pilot aircraft into the crowd for the purpose of killing them.
In which I suppose we should hand out hand guns to minors - make sure every kid at school has one. There was a cult who killed people using sarin gas on a subway in Japan. But it's not easy to get sarin - so maybe we can have a constitutional amendment that the peoples have ready access to nerve gas. A well armed militia might need sarin. And it's not easy to get access to planes if you have a mental problem, or you want to go kill some people in a hurry. And the really big planes are even harder to come by. So guns are okay for shooting up your local school.
Yet more irrelevant nonsense, presented from one who is factually-deficient in their presented opinion relating to a subject they have absolutely no understanding of, and no desire to engage in open, honest, legitimate debate and/or discussion.
Facts. Cold, hard, unfeeling, unbiased facts. Facts are the only thing that matter, because facts are the only thing that exist. Not some emotionally skewed narrative or hyperbolic nonsense.
Of course it is. It is meant to invoke a n emotional response in the reader, and thus, a fallacious appeal to emotion. Yours is just another example of how the dishonest try to advance their agenda by preying on the emotions of the ignorant.
Because you do not compare those statistics to the number of guns in the US. The fact 1 gun in 42,300 is used to commit murder in no way supports any action you suggest we take.
Who knows. They are capable of doing so. And they were designed to do so. But worse, your guns have lots of brother and sister guns out there - in the hands of people WHO WILL USE THEM TO MURDER THEMSELVES OR OTHERS IN THE NEAR FUTURE. Perhaps even, killing as I type this note.
Wonder how come there are so many guns? One gun kills someone and everyone else rushes out to buy one to "defend" themselves. It's a bit like this Coronavirus thing - it only kills a small percentage, so why worry? And road accidents? Small percentage, why worry? And nuclear weapons - only a few will be used so why worry?
No, not non sequitor, it's suggested from time to time to stem school shootings. Good idea I reckon. Every kid should have their own gun as soon as they are old enough to walk. For safety that is - there are other 2 and 3 year olds who have guns too.
Reckon you can get 600 people to stand in one spot? And why do we have rigorous training for Cessna flyers in the first place? Doesn't that infringe the right of anyone wanting to fly?
In the same sense that it is possible for yourself to become a serial rapist one day without warning?
The crowd at the concert was perfectly content to stand in one spot, and had no way of physically escaping. What was serving to prevent Stephen Paddock from crashing his private aircraft into the open air concert on that day? Explain such. Explain why such physically could not have occurred.