Man kills three, injures fourth, in workplace rampage

The problem is that most near anyone could make a rudimentary bow. It's not exactly an advanced technology.
Hunters were already using bows and arrows during the Neolithic Age.

Again, what does this show us? It's not the weapon, it's the person.

 

It's both. Guns are bad because they increase the fatality rate of violent crime:

"People kill with knifes, too. Do you want to ban knifes?" From Dr. Roth's study: The overall fatality rate in gun robberies is an estimated 4 per 1,000--about 3 times the rate for knife robberies, 10 times the rate for robberies with other weapons, and 20 times the rate for robberies by unarmed offenders. (Cook, Philip J., "Robbery Violence," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 78-2, (1987):357-376.) For assaults, a crime which includes threats, the most widely cited estimate of the fatality rate is derived from a 1968 analysis of assaults and homicides committed in Chicago. The study, prepared for the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, reported that gun attacks kill 12.2 percent of their intended victims. This is about 5 times as often as in attacks with knives, the second most deadly weapon used in violent crimes.(Newton, G.D., and F.E. Zimring, Firearms and Violence in American Life: A Staff Report Submitted to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, Washington, D.C.: National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, 1969.) With one exception, more recent studies have generally concluded that death was at least twice as likely in gun assaults as in knife assaults. (The exception is Kleck and McElrath, "The Effects of Weaponry on Human Violence.")
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm#The problem with

 

Constitutionally this means nothing.

 

More proof that Gun Free Zones = Killing Zones

 

In reality it means nothing, none the less the anti-gunners have to inject as much as they can into any thread.

 

More people dying because guns increase the fatality rate of violent crime means nothing to you? That's revealing and disturbing.

 

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Rampant gun violence undermines domestic tranquility and the security of a free state.

 

And if not for the presence of gun in the hands of the law abiding, the violence would be much greater, way greater.

The only thing that stops bad guys with guns are good guys with guns, a fact totally lost on those who wish to ban possession of guns by the law abiding.

 

False, criminals increase the fatality rate of violent crime, eliminate criminals and the violence would disappear overnight.

 

"Domestic tranquility" refers to war between the individual states; "security" refers to external threats. There is a total lack of any actual police powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution.

 

The number of people dying from gun violence (and the homicide rate of the 2010s decade was the lowest it's been since the 1950s, and the second lowest for a decade in the last 100 years) doesn't remove any restrictions on the government.

 

Yes, I've found these people do not respond to reason, they are so immersed in an ideology that has social costs and many lives lost due to their need for a tool specifically designed to kill other humans. They seem to peg their entire idea of Freedumb on it and it would be lost without it. Forget multiple examples in the rest of the developed world that show you can have freedom without gunfire.
Nearly 40,000 gun deaths a year is nothing to them. It is difficult to dissuade a zealot.

 

Should we allow the government to ignore the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and SCOTUS to make us safer?

 

See what I mean?

 

By your response, I see that you do indeed believe that the government should ignore limits on power.

Tell us what you want the government to do. Which countries should we emulate?

 

Arguing with an inflexible ideologue (which I have done many times) is a waste of my time, because reason and human life seem to matter very little. Hopefully, they will remain a small subspecies of the human race.

 

You just aren't capable of presenting a cogent argument on a debate forum. If "arguing with an inflexible ideologue (which I have done many times) is a waste of (your) time", why are you even here?

 

Do you think everyone is an inflexible ideologue?

 

No.

 

Only the bots here are.

You seem to fit that profile, why is that?

 

Bots? Inflexible ideologue and conspiracy theorist? That is quite the profile.

There's your answer.

 

That's no answer. You simply can't defend your position, nor are you willing to try. Has it been shot down so many times that you're afraid to try?

 

Seriously, I really do believe these people would eventually require a permit for having or carrying a baseball bat, after guns and knives were banned.

I think a lot of conservatives underestimate the crazy. "No one would possibly ever want to do that. That's totally absurd and silly."

When they pass a law and it does not solve the problem, they'll want to pass another law, and another.
Rather than admit that the policy is not solving the problem, they'll just double down on it and claim that same sort of policy needs to get stricter.
You can see this in so many different areas.

 

Many of the Power To The People people are obviously big liars.

 

This is totally off topic, but I think they mostly just want lots of free stuff, and sexual and psychedelic freedoms...
They have to constantly find and rail against tiny microagressions that existed in traditional society, all the while actually creating new forms of oppression by "banning" more things. Just a constant need to "progress" and change and upturning the traditional way of doing things. (For example, ratcheting up laws against cigarettes, while at the same time liberalizing laws on cannabis, how else does one explain that?)
So many more ironies, like viewing police as the evil oppressors but also at the same time advocating police be the only ones allowed to have weapons and use force. Which is the end result of the mentality of abrogating away responsibility from the individual to government to solve all our problems. It's a mentality that almost views people as children to the parent of collectivism.
The classical "liberal", which was once common in the American Democrat Party, seems to be nearly extinct these days.

Of course it's a little more complicated than that, but that's as much as I can get into in this thread.