No. Try reading up on the gun homicide rates in countries with strict gun control.
Any national level gun control in the US would be a long-term project with the massive saturation we have now.
Not having read most of the thread…
So if I set up bear traps, pitfalls with spikes, punji sticks and falling log traps for the firefighters, what kinds of weapons should they bring? :dubious:
Guns, obviously.
You shoot the bear trap so that it is knocked out of your way. Then you shoot the points off of the spikes in the pit so they are not pointy anymore. Same with punji sticks. Then you shoot the rope holding up the logs so they fall safely to the ground 20 feet away from you.
You guys act like this is some kind of rocket surgery. Or are you really that dumb. :dubious:
The gun thread equivalent of Godwin’s Law. What about all the women promoting guns for self-defense? Are they all suffering from penis envy?
People with small brains posit everything they don’t like to be about small penises.
What about people with large brains?
Doing quite well, thank you for asking.
Don’t be afraid. I know we seem alien to you, but we mean you no harm.
Strictly in the context of murder, no they don’t.
Our ovipositors are rather slender, actually, and you are free to pick the orifice you prefer. Its really the highest honor we have to offer an Earthling, to be chosen as a Sacred Vessel of New Life…
Nose
I’m not sure debates are supposed to work like this. You can’t just unilaterally declare an argument void without offering a reason why.
You claimed that guns don’t affect the ability to kill people, regardless of intent:
But now you are saying that this only applies to murder. Why? If guns don’t help murder people, how can they help killing people justifiably?
Why does anyone need guns at all?
To protect yourself against all the other people with guns?
This may sound like snark, but I have heard this argument used seriously.
- So that victims aren’t helpless against attackers who are a foot taller and a hundred pounds heavier than them.
- So that four attackers aren’t automatically omnipotent over and invulnerable against one victim.
Do you also agree that a gun makes a difference if the wielder is the attacker, and the others are innocent victims? Because there seems to be some confusion about this.
How come these attackers do not have guns? Is there some kind of talisman or something involved?
My short answer to the nagging question in this page is, you have a right to defend yourself with superior force (I’m too lazy to list all the qualifications.)
Oooh, a rhinosexual Earthling! Very rare, highly prized.
Just so we’re clear, then: your earlier objection to the point that guns make it easier to murder people-- that was just nonsense, right? Because it seemed kind of like nonsense to me.
We are in agreement now that guns make it a lot easier to murder people, and your strange objection to this obvious fact was a total error, yes?
I had to back-read my own post. I said it’s not easy to kill in any way. This is because of given controls. I can’t really say “it’s not easy to walk in public and start shooting people,” because obviously people can. But limited gun availability compared with other deadly weapons (even in America,) and police visibility can minimize this (this is up for further debate.) Your alt-ctl-del example was what made me say this concerning all types of weapons.
And then, there is relative ease by which one can murder. In this respect, guns rate high. No fool can deny that.
So your expert debating skills faltered slightly when you threw the next question, “Why should there be guns then?” This is much easier to answer.