Maybe he’s expecting us to grow up and fix our own messes. That’s my WAG, which is as good as any other.
“Who knows the mind of the Lord? Who has been his counselor?” asks Paul. I sure don’t.
Rephrased as a question here.
No option for left-handed shooters. That’s a pretty significant oversight.
Before I trust my life or the lives of others, I expect an honest accounting of how often it fails.
Isn’t that funny, I feel the same way about giving guns to people. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, so it doesn’t matter how failure-proof a gun is if you hand it over to a skittish doofus.
Ah, I see.
Please point me to the published failure rates for the firearms you use - as reported by the gun manufacturers, and as verified by independent testing.
You want an honest accounting, right?
A news comedian has suddenly taken a brave outside stance on the whole affair:
Conan O’Brien: ‘I Don’t Think It Should Be So Easy for One Demented Person to Kill So Many People’
It probably wouldn’t prevent thousands of other deaths, but if you have evidence otherwise feel free to present it. My understanding is that the amount of unintentional firearm death in the US has been under 1000 for the last 20ish years at least.
As to the “isn’t that a good enough place to start”, I’d say no. You’ve identified some potential benefits - have you identified any potential costs? I would expect when making any evaluation both the cost and benefit side of the equation would be considered.
The issue with all manner of gun control proposals that appear immediately after a shooting tragedy is not their proximity in time to the incident, but rather their irrelevance. The Vegas shooter apparently had many many weapons, and had plenty of time to plan. A proposal for user specific weapons would have done nothing to prevent what happened. But these types of things get floated in the name of ‘we have to do something!’ If a given proposal wouldn’t have made a difference one way or another, then using a tragedy seems less like trying to address a problem and more like posturing.
For example, if a proposal was that hotels should have metal detectors, well I’m not sure if I’d be against that or if that would be legal, but at least arguably that could have had an impact on what happened.
The “if victims had guns they could have defended themselves” argument was always shaky to begin with, and in this instance it is completely non-applicable. No victim in the crowd would have been capable of hitting the shooter, hundreds of yards away, with a Glock in that situation; in fact quite possibly never would have located the shooter to begin with. Unless people are supposed to go around toting sniper rifles in the name of self defense.
He - and his kind - can repeat this as much as he wants. It doesn’t make a difference.
Until the 2nd Amendment is repealed, this cannot be legally avoided, in fact you might even say - as horrific as it sounds - that shooting massacres are embedded in the Constitution this way and that you can’t legally stop such massacres from happening.
Your post eloquently illustrates the fundamental difference between US gun culture and the gun culture in virtually any other developed country.
In the rest of the developed world, a civilian gun is seen as a tool for punching holes in paper, or bagging a nice dinner. IOW, gun use is a sport. You guys seem to regard a gun - even a civilian gun - as a tool for killing people.
No wonder you have the murder statistics you have.
Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
Sure you can. You can get more guns into the hands of law abiding citizens!
Well, so was slavery too. And no, I do not think we need a war to change this issue now, we need only an amendment or just a bill to ensure that “well regulated” means something… Dammit.
New technology needs to be proven.
Our house gun has about 8,000 rounds through it with no failures.
100,000-Round 9mm Torture Test (1995)
Sure, but it’s very brave of him to come out and say what others dare not think.
Sorry to disappoint you but I have neither shot anyone nor do I dream of shooting someone.
A gun is also a tool for defense.
Okay, no big deal then, don’t worry about it. Is that it?
*You *certainly haven’t. Got any for us, other than the tyranny/freedom stuff?
Sure. The benefit is thousands of people per year not getting killed. The cost is, well, maybe a one-time thing to be a compensation for property, but still basically budget dust. Oh, there’s one more benefit: We no longer have to put up with excuses and footdragging from the likes of you.
So what’s *your *solution? Shit, do you even recognize a problem? Much less that the problem includes you? Or are you content merely to massage your disdain for those who do not share your fetish and instead have some sort of incomprehensible regard for human life?
I am going to screenshot this post. This might go down as one of the stupidest posts I’ve ever seen and boy, that’s saying something; I’ve been on these boards a long time.
Don’t blame guns - blame hotel security!
Yeah, some measure could easily save hundreds of lives, but think of how unfair it would be to make gun owners shoulder that cost. Seriously, I can’t roll my eyes far enough back in my head to express how stupid your reasoning is.
Your reasoning is pretty much EXACTLY what automakers were saying when debate was ongoing about having airbags be required. ‘We don’t know how many people it will save. Think of the costs’ etc etc. At least in that case consumers had to pay the price of the air bag; with guns it’s only the innocents that are shot and killed EVERY SINGLE DAY that are paying the costs of doing NOTHING.
Even just focusing on kids, we know that dozens, possibly up to 100, kids are accidentally shot and killed ever year. Hundreds of people are killed due to unintentional firearm injury, and even that probably understates it, because in some cases those are classified as homicides and such.
Would any one solution be immediately perfect? Maybe not. Would it help and would it be a start? Absolutely.
The plural of anecdote is not ‘data’.
I’ll repeat - please point me in the direction of published failure rate for the firearms you use. I mean, you’d never trust the your life or your loved one without an honest accounting for failure rate, right?
Or are you doing just that?
If you want to have some fun, ask him to provide studies that show having a gun in the house makes you safer.
I’m of the belief that evaluating decisions on a cost/benefit basis is a good thing. If you make an evaluation without considering potential costs, I think you’re doing it wrong.