You and may others have said on countless occasions that the likes of Australia and the Brits are disarmed. I have pointed out on those occasions that they're not disarmed of guns and I've even added links to the types of guns available. Yet again, you have stated, "The populace are disarmed". So I can't help you. I can't answer questions from you when you've been told many times but it has appeared to have had no effect. If you now jump from the military to baseball bats from Amazon, I can only assume it's a smoke screen to deflect from a simple topic. The populace are not disarmed, New Zealand are removing certain types of guns. Australia did the same and the UK did the same. It's unlikely to stop future attacks from happening, but they're likely to be less deadly. And if you want to go back to baseball bats, I don't think there would be many dead if the NZ mosque attacker was armed with the latest baseball bat off Amazon. And if it was made in China, it'll probably snap on the first swing.
They are disarmed. You can't buy a firearm in the UK for the purposes of self defense. Your fricking Parliament members suggested adding GPS trackers to all knives in the country. By law, the only two items you can purchase FOR THE PURPOSE of self-defense is a rape whistle and dye. Yes, if someone is killing you, and you happen to be able to grab a fork and stab them in the eye, they'll probably release you from jail after you're proven innocent of not stabbing them "too much". And again, the most deadly attacks in Europe didn't even involve firearms. Disarming the law-abiding citizens in Europe is simply the micro of disarming your military at the macro level. The people who want to kill you will always find weapons to do it. The difference is, you'll only be able to stand there and bleat in response.
Not that f****** s*** again. Just forget it, it's obvious you don't take the topic seriously. Just keep going around and around with the same old crap.
On the contrary, I take it very seriously. Some day you'll understand why, when some Muslim with a machete kills a police officer armed only with a nightstick, but gets into Parliament and is stopped by a gun, why you should have the same level of protection. Just like the Muslim in NZ who picked up a gun and chased away the shooter to avert another slaughter. There's a reason your government members are protected by guns.
You just keep deflecting off on the same old crap as though we've never been over it one thousand times.
They were not punished by actions committed by their government against the people. However those who do own firearms that may soon be prohibited, and thus forced to surrender them as a result of this incident, will be punished by their government, despite doing nothing wrong.
It's been that way since we came down from the trees. It's the cost of living as a unit. We aren't bears you know.
Such is not a legitimate excuse for employing such tactics. Nor should such tactics be utilized exclusively with regard to firearms.
Such is the mentality utilized by those who deliberately go around infecting others with HIV and/or AIDS.
The analogy, however, is factually correct. Punishing those who have done nothing wrong, for the actions of those who have, has no place in a system of justice implemented by what is supposed to be the most intelligent species on the planet. It is nothing more than spite and vindictiveness made legitimate. In simple, uncomplicated, easy to understand terms, it is the mentality of revenge.
Learn to comprehend you still are not getting it. Besides I wasn't replying to you so mind your own effing business.
