It always reminds me of this. It starts at 2:28:

If only UltraRunner was still here.....

My statements are based on facts - saying they're tosh means you've basically lost the argument.

I don't think it makes any difference really in mass shootings what kind of firearm is used, there have been mass shootings with pretty much every type of firearm there is, including firearms that take a really long time to put out a lot of shots such as single-shot and double-barrel shotguns.

Best case scenario it just makes the nutcase do the shooting in a slightly different way, e.g. in Dunblane he made sure he cornered his victims in a gym, in Cumbria he drove around shooting pedestrians.

They're too isolated of an event to say that banning gun X would make any difference. When someone introduces a law to ban gun X then it's usually just a sop to public sentiment.

Best example is Dunblane and the Port Arthur shootings - after Dunblane, handguns were banned in GB, but you can still have certain types of semi-automatic shotgun and rifle legally in the UK. After the Port Arthur shootings they banned all semi-automatic long guns of any type in Australia - but handguns are still legal. Logically, if it was scientifically based, they would have banned the same type of gun, but they banned the guns that were the opposite of the other country.

In reality it's just kneejerk legislation that makes no sense.

There's no point in answering your question for the reasons I already pointed out - but it should be obvious that all of these inventions were not dreamt up for no reason - "necessity, who is the mother of invention". And there wouldn't be an industry around making them and an entire retail industry selling them.

If you really want to know, do a bit of research, because sitting here listing the reasons clearly isn't going to satisfy you, it's a baiting question.

The question isn't really whether they have a benefit, the question is whether in a free society you could effectively ban them, and the answer is no, so what benefit they provide to society is largely academic.

But there are restrictions - and they are far beyond those that exist for alcohol, even in the US.

Remind me again - what happened during Prohibition in the 1920s...

The bits of the USA I have been to, which is quite a few, have been pretty liberal when it comes to alcohol. Strict on ID, certainly, but the stuff is everywhere. I was very surprised in NYC last December to find that a major pharmacy chain sold booze. And cigs.

Was it like what happened in the UK after guns were outlawed? Gun smuggling was rife. The banning allowed various criminal gangs to come to power whose sole purpose was to supply guns to the ordinary working man who was desperate for a bit of shooting to relax after work.

You were allowed to brew your own guns.

Tea doesn't kill people. People kill people.

Your statements are based on no facts what so ever. They are complete and utter tosh.

To accuse other people of losing a debate you have bought absolutely nothing tangible too so far could be deemed as immature.

Go away for a day and everyone regresses.

Same in California, you can find booze anywhere from a liquor store, grocery store, corner store, gas station, Wal-Mart, and most other general retailers, its very liberal there, but ID is enforced and heavy handed if selling to minors.

Only real restriction is no booze can be sold from 2am to 6am, so you have 20 hours per day to buy it.

Carding is pretty strict here. Anyone who looks younger than 25 gets carded.

Wal-Mart doesn't sell booze here.

Coming a week after granny shoots her 7 year old grandson we now have a 9 year old girl shooting someone dead. With an Uzi.

This one was okay though as he was a firearms instructor and it happened safely on a firing range.