Tom, did you just say "Gasoline"? Is everything okay?,(reply>), +namelessUser Minor correction: killing is the direct secondary application of a knife or truck (cutting and transportation being their respective primary applications); I think you accidentally implied that cutting/transportation are secondary applications with "unlike a knife or a truck".,(reply>), JetStream90 While I do agree with you on most of the comment, I will concede this much: A truck is a mode of transport, and a knife is a valuable kitchen utensil. Sure, both can be used for nefarious means, but that's not their primary use. I think some of the controversy in the US regarding guns revolve around the fact that a gun's primary function is as a point-and-kill weapon; it has no direct secondary application, unlike a knife or a truck. A gun's usefulness lies more in its use as a deterrent simply by existing, not from actual functional use. While I don't necessarily agree with this, it's easier to pass laws restricting access to something whose sole primary function is to kill than on something that has multiple productive uses, like a knife.,(reply>), no,(reply>), As an American, what is bad about using the word “Gasoline?” Its a perfectly ok and interchangeable word for “petrol.” How does being American automatically mean I, or people like me, have to be “Obese?” What about the millions of Americans, that are actually healthy weights? Most of the people I know personally are actually not obese. I may be the exception, but judging by the thousands of people that I see at airports weekly as an airline pilot, you are the one with an over-generalized “obese” stereotype.<br><br>Lastly, about the second amendment... (with the recent Las Vegas shooting in mind,) there is a fundamental right that we all must have to defend ourselves from criminals that would take our lives, kidnap our loved ones, steal and ruin our property, etc.  However, 23 firearms (like in the shooting) I think we can agree is a bit excessive. I don’t think it is necessary to have that many, but let’s be honest here... all you need is more ammo for one fast-firing and well-skilled shooter to match many with less ammo each... so plain numbers aren’t the main issue. The issue is realizing that criminals will be criminals. One gun or fifty, one knife or a dozen, one can of gas and a match or ten, it all washes out in the end because of this one point: <b>(Key point)</b> If a person hates someone else to that degree, and devalues their life to the point of being willing to end it, they WILL find a way to do it.  Just take the evil person in France that drove a truck into the crowd. Because of that, should we have background checks before renting a moving van? Should we have big-rig 18-wheeler drivers go through rigorous personality profile testing since they operate a potential deadly weapon? Obviously not, but where’s the line? We need to understand that we will never defeat “evil” by removing the evildoer’s tools. Evildoers will simply choose different tools or make their own, we can’t really stop them that well. The focus should be on preventing people from becoming evildoers by figuring out “why” they “wanted” to do what they did to begin with. If we can learn more about “why” then we should be able to steer people away from that before they become threats. It’s a hate, lack of value for life, etc. problem, Not an availability of tools problem.