6-year-old boy dies after being shot during road rage incident

that depends on a lot of things, none of which are real and this is about real solutions. Banning things has never worked.

 

It's been done, or close to it.

You do realize that according to statistics, AR-15s are not the gun of choice for mass shootings, right?

 

I snort-laughed. Just.... OMG....

 

There is a difference between self defense and road rage. You even start the thread with road rage in the title and then try to (not so cleverly) switch it to a self defense argument.

I think you came across that article and was like "hey, how can I make this anti GOP" and then that light bulb went off.
SO CLEVER!
Can you give me lessons so I can make awesome threads with a twist?
good job!

 

You didn't answer my question.

In an hour, all other factors being the same, it is MUCH easier and faster to kill with a gun than with a knife.

You say banning things never works. I disagree with your opinion.

My goal is not to stop all gun murder entirely, that's not possible. My goal is to reduce the number of people that die due to gun injuries. Reduce and Eliminate are not the same thing.

I won't let perfect be the enemy of good. Will you?

 

That depends. Have the intended victims been disarmed by the government?

 

As a general statement, the idea of people thinking if they ask for just a little give-way, that they aren't still ignoring what the 2nd Amendment actually says.

The current laws do not prevent criminals from criminal acts. Non-criminals haven't violated anyone's rights or laws, so no, your idea doesn't fly. It will prevent nothing.

 

Why would this matter if the question is which one kills faster/more easily, gun or knife?

 

I didn’t answer it because it’s as pointless. You can kill more in a short period of time until a guy with a gun shoots you or you run out of ammo. A guy with a knife can keep going until a guy with a gun shoots him, or he gets tired.
The question bears no value, banning things has never worked in the history of ever. How about this, round up all the felons and other criminals with guns, then report back for us to sort out the remainder of the problems.

 

Opinions can change and laws can be amended. I am not okay with outright bans now, but I would be okay with restrictions and regulations.

Again I note your dodge.

It's okay.

I know that you, much like myself and most others around here, are locked into our views.

I am mostly replying to others that may read this thread with a somewhat open mind.

In one hour, can you kill more people with a knife rather than with a gun?

 

It's horrible, where did I make lite of it?

 

A gun cannot kill fast or slow. A killers ability to increase the body count depends on the victims ability to defend themselves. Gun laws give these killers an advantage.

 

It's not pointless, in my opinion.

Round up all criminals with guns? Almost as ridiculous a suggestion as banning all guns, right now. At some time in the future, it may be more feasible.

But we live in a country where freedom trumps all, and we don't have morality laws forcing people to be nice. So we end up with a large number of angry, selfish people.

And when they decide to kill, they are more likely to pick the method that does the most damage in the least time with the best success rate, IE: Guns.

 

Wait, you’re looking to stop the people who can legally own something, but just throw your palms up when the more logical and truly effective choice of catching bad guys with guns comes up? Exactly HOW do you know what people will decide to do when they want to kill again?

freedom > security.

 

That is one factor.

There are many others, such as the ease of obtaining the killing weapon. And how quickly it can kill.

How do you not consider those factors?

 

Sorry, it's not a black and white thing, IMO.

If you are going to live on the principle of absolute freedom, you have to know it will be used against you.

A single person's gun won't save them when they have a dozen pointed at them.

 

no one has absolute freedom, we have laws. Ok, in that one scenario a single persons gun may not save them, but if it were me I'd still rather take some of the murderers with me. I don’t see where your going on that at all.

 

We don't care.

Any gun is more effective than a knife.

 

Don't give me the argument that guns protect the country from dictatorship.

The Capitol was invaded by a pro 2A horde that wanted to overturn a democratic election.

Every other democracy in the world has tougher gun laws than the US.

Do you really want to compare the US homicide rate with that of Germany, Canada, Norway, UK, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Australia and so many others...?

 

Okay. So, I assume you agree that a murderer can kill a greater number of people in an hour with a gun than with a knife, correct?

So, the next concern is how to save more lives.

There are two paths we can take to fix this, IMO, the people path, and the equipment path. You say the equipment path won't happen. I say the people path won't happen.

Do you know of any other path?

Do you have any suggestions on how to solve the issue going down the people path?

 

The main factor is the intended victims ability to defend themselves. Gun laws only help the killer.

 

You say the main factor, I disagree.

Gun laws help only the killer? No, I don't agree with that.

Your belief in all or nothing, black and white politics will betray you. It may take time, but eventually, people will get tired of the mass killings and legally force those restrictions in.

I am not afraid of restrictions. I live for more people than just myself.

 

Why not just poison the water supply?
Blow up a building with manure and fuel oil?
Fill up a bunch of drones with nails and black powder?

If someone wants to kill a bunch of people... They are not going to be stopped by a lack of guns.

On the contrary... It's guns that are likely to stop them.

Or are you also suggesting we need to arm the police with swords? Boy.. Things were so less violent when all people had to kill each other were swords and clubs....

 

Those other options you mention are not as efficient.

Sure, they can kill lots of people, but they also require much more prep time than buying a gun. Also, they pose some danger in their creation to the murderer themselves.

There is a reason murderers prefer guns in a majority of cases.

And sure, guns may stop them, but they may also not. The increase in harm owning a gun outweighs the benefits, IMO.

I am 42 years old. I have never had to own a gun to protect myself. I take common sense precautions into account when I go into public space.

I try to travel with others. I keep an eye on my surroundings at all times. I don't go out flashing expensive things, etc.

I do it, others can too.

 

Mass murderers are not crimes of opportunity. You do not prevent them by eliminating tools of opportunity. Lanza, Holmes, Cruz, Harris & Klebold et al all had very detailed plans that took years to develop. Atta didn't just buy a plane ticket and think, "yanno, I think I'll smash this plane into a building today." Mass murders are caused by ideation, not by availability of firearms. The mass murder line of your argument is just silly.

So don't own one. Do you believe everyone should be forced to make that same decision? Because a number of those that disagree with you will still acquire them. Hell, they are easy enough to make.

Do you really believe that your situation applies to everyone? Do you think Dr Petit wishes he had a firearm when this happened?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders

One of the attackers claimed they decided to carry out the crime after following his daughter home from a convenience store. Was she to blame, you think?