Comments by "Mat Broomfield" (@matbroomfield) on "Question: What Would You Ask the NRA?" video.

  1. Wow, many good points sir.
    1
  2. Obama's hypocrisy is another, completely unrelated issue. Of course I want a world where nobody NEEDS guns, but clearly that's a pipe dream. But I'd be satisfied with a world where guns were considerably harder to acquire, greatly decreasing the liklihood of facing one in the hands of a criminal.
    1
  3. Their area is not the issue. If you consider gun deaths per thousand people, they still come out dramatically below the US. The Mexican connection may be an issue - I don't know, but the US's uptight prohibition of drugs has created virtual civil war down there that has so far cost over 100,000 lives. Legalise marijuana and cocaine and most of te crime from Mexico disappears. Legalise prostitution and many of the major causes for organised crime in the US evaporate overnight.
    1
  4. Let's face it, an armed populace has NO CHANCE against a government that has been waging war in Pakistan from 5000 feet in the air, with the victims never even being aware that they were under fire. A rifle is not going to save anyone against drone strikes or even the might of the regular military.
    1
  5. Yes, this is the point that always gets distorted in the rush to argue how vital it is that you can defend yourselves. That the very guns you want to protect you, are the ones that are more likely to hurt you. Like a teenager taking his first hit of heroin and saying, "Yes I know it instantly addicts and destroys everyone else, but it won't do that to me..."
    1
  6. The time when the people shared a seat at the table of power has long since passed. Lobbyist, special interest groups and big business are the only ones influencing government any more. The belief that guns in ANY way give you standing in terms of political influence is a complete fantasy. Your "rights" are only what people decided to give you; they can be withdrawn or modified. They're not innate to human existence. If they need changing for the wellbeing of society, then so be it.
    1
  7. It's the scenario most often cited by pro-gun people, along with somehow defending yourselves against foreign invasion. I suppose there is also the possibility of civil disorder. I think that this endless citing of your right to bear arms reveals a deeply insecure people.
    1
  8. Some excellent questions David!
    1
  9. A very emotive statement. So if the statistics showed that more people are killed BECAUSE of gun owership, you would immediately be in favour of banning guns? Because one could argue the exact opposite position with equal validity.
    1
  10. Wasn't the right to bear arms an amendment to the consititution in the first place? It's just a piece of paper written 238 years ago, not the holy grail. I mean, I accept that it as given you many fine and admirable values, and should not lightly be tossed aside and amended, but if people are so terrified of re-examining it, then that does bespeak a certain insecurity or closed mindedness to me. And you already made the gunpointing jibe before, and I batted it effortlessly away.
    1
  11. Nobody is suggesting that professionals should not be armed. But clearly making weapons of easy, remote, instant death available to an angry, criminal, volatile, immature population is a potential problem.
    1
  12. I don't hate the American people - but I am prosaic about the nature of many of them. If you don't think that having a population of quick-to-anger gun owners is relevant to whether or not guns should be freely avalable, then I don't know what is.
    1