The post that you refer to. Pray tell what is the context that you refer to, that you believe coherently explains what ultimate, meaningful difference is made regarding the commission of a murder, on what implement is used in ending the life of another. If such contexts exists, then it is not being seen. Therefore the question must be asked again. Why is it more important if someone is murdered through being shot, as opposed to being beaten to death with a hammer? Why does the implement used even matter, if what is most important is the fact that someone has been murdered? Your original post amounts to nothing more than suggesting conservative republicans are prone to not only violence, but also mental instability that makes them prone to unprovoked violence against others. Nothing that would support such a position has been presented anywhere.
So how are you going to prevent that? - - - Updated - - - So? Archery was designed to kill, probably even more so than guns. Yet I don't hear a campaign against longbows.
According to CDC data, blunt instruments and knives are #2 and #3 on the lists of murder weapon categories. Once you ban/control guns, which one are you going after next, or are those deat totals sufficiently low as to be acceptable?
Some weapons like guns make it very easy to kill large amounts of people in a very short period of time as opposed to blunt instruments and knives. Ever try to kill someone with a butter knife or a pillow? I'd say its not so easy, tho' it can be done, just that it would take a while to accomplish it.
Yet killing lots of people in a short amount of time is actually fairly rare, given the number of guns legally owned in the US, and account for a tiny fraction of the gun homicides. If fact, most years they are just a few percentage points of the deaths from knife and blunt instrument homicides. If your primary mission is reducing or stopping mass shootings, how do you plan to get there?
Mass killings are statistically rare. The vast majority of murders in the united states are single-party incidents that involve one perpetrator and one victim. Therefore it does not matter how supposedly easy it is to kill large amounts of people in a short amount of time with a firearm, as these incidents are not the norm, and are nothing more than a tiny fraction of the number of homicides that occur in the united states.
No. I guess you got lost along the way. You should go back and read the prior posts before commenting.
Oh I'm not lost at all. You said some weapons make it very easy to kill large amounts of people in a short period of time. To date, there has been no terror attack committed by a single terrorist in Europe that killed more people than the Renault truck attack in Nice, France. The only thing more effective than that truck was the usage of airplanes on 9/11. Guns aren't even close to being the most effective weapon.
Indeed we will not. There is no denying that the use of a single motor vehicle in a terror-related attack has led to more deaths than any mass killing in the united states where a firearm was used. Eighty five individuals were murdered in very short order, and an additional four hundred and thirty two were seriously injured, all in a span of less than five minutes. No mass killing in the united states, outside of the terrorist attacks on september eleventh, has managed to even come close to this sheer number of casualties, despite firearms being freely available during each incident. It does not matter if motor vehicles are not intended for the purpose of killing large groups of individuals in a short amount of time. One did exactly that, regardless of what it was designed to do, and it did so with a greater success rate than any firearm, or combination of firearms.
I don't think you get it; you know your right; I know I'm right therefore we cannot agree, hence we'll have to agree to disagree on this thread. When I tell you we agree to disagree, that means the discussion is over so don't waste your time trying to continue on with the discussion
Disagree all you want, you're still demonstrably wrong. I don't blame you for not wanting to discuss it, since there's really nothing you can say in your defense.
Well I know I'm right and your wrong; so we'll have to agree to disagree and that my good man concludes any debate on this issue in this thread.
If we ban guns, we also have to ban dynamite, pyrotrol, fertilizer, diesel fuel, airplanes, large trucks, and poisoned koolaid. All of these have been used in mass murder. Maybe as a preemptive measure, we could drain dams, outlaw gasoline, and outlaw passenger ships, just in case. Welcome to the 14th century.
Exactly what people say on these forums when they have been defeated or have no more facts to back up their claims.
Or finally realize that we are right and they are wrong and there is no coming to an agreement Chuck.
You've missed my point yet at the same time I think you've made my point. The point you missed was whether or not a thing is designed to kill is irrelevant when it comes to how many people die from it. The point you made for me was that when you wager exactly how many guns are out there, how many times they are used to kill, and how many time have guns been used for self defense you'll realize that guns offer a greater gain than lost.
Sorry but this is last year. His death will go against the 2016 target and not the 2017 target. You guys need to shoot a minimum of 2,500 of each other every month of you'll miss your target.
Don't look for help from gun rights supporters, unless you send a few democrats to break into their homes and cars.
