Where did I advocate the strict policy of bomb ownership you stated?
I was just making the point that societies have rules. Some of those rules include things you can and cannot own. Those rules are not there to "oppress" you, they're there to have some order. Now, different societies have different rules. The right to bear arms is pretty hard baked into your constitution and psyche, in many countries that is not the case. But remember that the amendment was ratified in 1791, before guns were efficient enough to kill 10 people and wound 26 in under a minute. Now you do have weapons that efficient then you might want to think about whether it should be your right to own one. Because you might be nice and responsible and not go around killing loads of people with it, but not everyone is that responsible
Now, is Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan to be considered an assault weapon or no?
If they are efficient enough to kill 10 people and wound 26 in under a minute with their bare hands, then yes. But I don't think you should be able to own Bruce Lee either.
Should you be trying to influence policy decisions in the US?
I doubt you are in a position to make policy decisions. I doubt anyone reading this is either. So me expressing my opinions, which you have agreed I'm entitled to, is not doing that.
How many more lives are spared via the use of firearms in the US than are lost?
Good question and I'd suggest it's one that's very hard to answer.
Besides, no one can argue those calling for more strict gun control laws are those hiding behind the comfort and safety of...you guessed it...ARMED SECURITY GUARDS!!!
Aren't they just people who see the number of mass shootings as "a problem" and think that problem should be addressed?
Do you see it as a problem? If not then...wow. If you do then what do you think should be done about it?
Realistically, disarming is going to be difficult, even if the gun lobby weren't so powerful the genie is out of the bottle in the US.
No, they're not.
Well, nuh-uh isn't much of a response but you might want to think about whether you want to live in a society where you're in fear of your life.
Maybe if other people didn't have powerful weapons you wouldn't feel the need to own one yourself.
After the nightclub shooting there was some ridiculous quote (I think from your mate Trump) about how if more people had had guns then the shooter could have been neutralised.
Two stupid things about that:
1) Would having more people in a dark room shooting in panic really have helped the situation?
2) Do you want to live in a society where you feel the need to go for a night out armed?
The trouble is in the US you can't even start the debate without people screaming THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY ALL YOUR GUNS!
Didn't Trump do just that in the run up to the last election? Claiming that Clinton was going to take away all your guns? The NRA certainly did.
But it was a complete lie, Clinton never said no-one should have guns but any hint at better control leads to that reaction.