Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Driving cars costs a lot of lives. We still drive cars.

Or maybe you can agree that FEWER cars on the road would lead to less lives lost?

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Mass attacks using fireplace pokers seems a bit far fetched.

Most murders are not mass attacks. Fireplace pokers would do just fine for a single murder. So would bare fists for that matter.

farmerman wrote:

Thus bathtubs are also right out since one would have to bring the victims TO the device. That would, of course, restrict the carnage.

Most people end up inside a bathtub voluntarily at least once a day.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

But if we got rid of cars and everyone switched to walking or riding a bike or a train or a plane...some people would die (falling off a bike can break a neck, some planes crash, etc), but not as many.....right?

Correct.

And eliminating guns would likewise eliminate gun accidents.

Not much in the way of reducing murders however.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

If there were no guns, there would be fewer murders. Yes or no.

There would probably be a very slight reduction. Nothing significant however.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Or maybe you can agree that FEWER cars on the road would lead to less lives lost?

Of course.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

The Fundamental Rights ("Basic Law" of Germany) can be limited and some rights may be suspended by ....

I'm paraphrasing a bit, but the general rule in the US is that a Constitutional right (like the Second Amendment) can only be restricted if that restriction can be justified with a good reason.

A restriction is also not allowed to be severe enough to impede the function of the right. In the case of the Second Amendment as it applies to ordinary citizens (not militiamen) that function would be self defense.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

If there were no guns, there would be fewer murders.

If there were no Muslims would there be fewer Islam inspired terror attacks?

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

There is no way of telling 12,000 people would be murdered or not. They may use a different weapon is all.

Murderers would indeed just use a different weapon. Gun availability has little correlation with homicide rates. Homicide rates correlate much more strongly with poverty levels.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Your right to own these weapons of mass destruction equates in my mind to Sadam Hussein's right to his weapons of mass destruction.

Guns are not weapons of mass destruction.

If they were, you just justified the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Really moral of you to sacrifice other peoples' lives but not your own.

No one is being sacrificed. Those people would be just as dead if the murderer killed them with a different weapon.

But how about all the people who die from car accidents just because you want to be able to drive your own car on the road? Where is the morality in that?

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

It would stop 12000 killings a year.

No it wouldn't. The murderers would just use different weapons and the victims would be just as dead.

MontereyJack wrote:

Gun shots are MUCH easier than knives or bombs and more available. That is why people use them.

True.

But knives and bombs work well enough, which is why murderers still kill people even when they don't have a gun.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Why do anything to stop murder when you can just bury your head in the sand instead?

It's not like you have any proposals that would stop murder.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Guns are the weapons of choice and they are very effective.

The fact is, the states with reasonable gun laws had less gun violence.

1 Reply

@msolga,

Rights come with responsibilities and not all rights are absolute.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

The owner of such weapons always denies the truth about them.

He did not deny any truth. Guns are not weapons of mass destruction.

A ballistic missile carrying MIRVed thermonuclear warheads is a weapon of mass destruction.

A cruise missile rigged to dispense antibiotic-resistant anthrax is a weapon of mass destruction.

0 Replies

@MaleChauvinist,

MaleChauvinist wrote:

Guns are the weapons of choice and they are very effective.

So?

MaleChauvinist wrote:

The fact is, the states with reasonable gun laws had less gun violence.

How come anyone who either advocates fascism or advocates violating civil rights always claims either reason or common sense?

Anyway, having people murdered, raped, and robbed with knives is no real improvement over having people murdered, raped, and robbed with guns. The victims still get murdered, raped, and robbed.

0 Replies

@MaleChauvinist,

MaleChauvinist wrote:

Rights come with responsibilities and not all rights are absolute.

No rights at all are absolute.

So what?

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Not all murderers are criminals before they act. Since we will not run out of disturbed individuals anytime soon, we have to take away the weapons that allow them to act out.

Neither the NRA nor the courts will allow you to do that.

edgarblythe wrote:

Your demand to have weapons of mass destruction means nothing to me.

No one has made such a demand.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Had high capacity, rapid fire semi's NOT been available to a target market the entire law enforcement competence issue would have been moot. I like the way you try to deconstruct things in order to try to reach a point.

I suspect that a high capacity rapid-fire lever action rifle would be just as deadly.

Semi-auto isn't really the problem in any case. Rapid follow up shots have a legitimate use in both hunting and self defense. The potential for carnage comes from combining rifles and high capacity magazines.

But anyway, self-defense requirements demand allowing people to have handguns with ten round detachable magazines at a minimum.

Had the kid not had access to ten round rifle magazines, he would have used a .45 Glock.

Perhaps fewer people killed. But I think the sheriff's cowardice would have still been an issue.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

No one has made such a demand.

If they can't make something up, they won't play. It is the way lies are started about the people who disagree with them. It does not matter to most if it is true or not. Intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

0 Replies

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know