Then you can ban knives, and fireworks, and vehicles, and karate classes, etc. until all you’re left with would be the people who somehow manage to justify mass murder and carry it out. Those would be the very same problem people you should have been addressing all along.
Creating “feel good” firearm registration/confiscation laws doesn’t address the mindset of the loony who simply wants to murder someone. The murderer is dangerous. An inanimate object can’t jump up murder you because it feels like it. Inanimate objects have no feelings.
Ten or 15 years ago, the votes for gay marriage weren’t there. Then they were. I clearly see the same thing coming for stricter, common-sense gun control. And thank goodness.
It’s true that in other countries crazy people kill people with knives, axes, hammers, etc. It’s just obviously, or should be obvious, a lot harder than pointing and shooting at range, or just a couple feet away. For one thing, you have to run up and get close to your target. And since most people don’t like getting stabbed they’ll try to fight you off. It takes a lot of energy to hack someone to death. You have to really want it. They’ll probably end up taking a lot of defensive wounds on their arms and hands. That wastes a lot of your time, which means other people are running away or tackling you. It’s not like in the movies where if you get stabbed in the chest you keel over and die instantly.
Remember this one from a few years back? Dude stabbed 24 children and didn’t kill a single one. It’s not like the little devils have a lot of blood to spare, either. Guy must’ve been really bummed out at that level of futility.
Or how about the 2014 Kunming attack. Eight people with knives in a huge crowd, pretty much a nightmare scenario. 143 injured, 29 dead. That’s almost 4 killed per knife wielder. Eight people almost killed as many as Seung-Hui Cho did by himself with a couple of pistols.
Gun control is pretty futile here, though. America has guns up the ying yang.
For use in a well-regulated militia, actually. And you better believe when we get more Democratic appointees on the Supreme Court, they are going to interpret that fairly narrowly. So we will solve this one the same way we did abortion and gay marriage: through the courts.
Your guy at least spilled beer on his shoes. These kids didn’t do doodle:
But let’s also note that pointing out single instances is stupid. We could both pull out every senseless killing in every city in every nation that’s happened over the last 50 years or we could look at data. Either there’s a positive, causitive correlation between the number of guns in society and homicide rates, or there isn’t. Factually, there isn’t.
ETA: In the British situation, there were three assailants and two victims. In the American case, the guy with the gun was outnumbered but clearly the gun prevented anyone in the group from going after him.
But it’s all just so disingenuous. If you gun advocates really thought guns gave you no advantage in a confrontation, you wouldn’t care whether they were banned or not.
I’m not a gun advocate. I’m a Straight Doper. There’s no factual link between the prevalence of guns and homicide rates. Ergo, I am fighting ignorance.
If you don’t like guns, fine. But if you want to try and weasel your way around the lack of data to support your side by finding some nonsense circumstances where things would have gone a different direction dependent on the presence of a gun, then I’m sorry but the whole argument is moot if there’s no correlation between guns and homicides. You’re not accomplishing anything.
Yes, the pro-gun crowd might have some stupid arguments on their side, and it may well give you joy to point it out, but you’re still wasting time on a problem that doesn’t exist.
It may be stupid to argue that, “America is the Greatest Country in the World, and thus the Moon landings are real”. But the fact would remain that the Moon landings are real. Now if, as a Doper, you want to make sure that the person who believes in the Moon Landings believes in them for the right reasons, that’s all good and fair. But if you’re trying to argue that America isn’t the Greatest Country in the World, because you think that somehow you can pull that around to demonstrating that the Moon landings were faked well…no. You might have a point, but you’re still a crank.
Hahahaha. No, the 2nd did not insure arms only for a well-regulated militia. All of the amendments listed in the Bill of Rights were for individuals - aka “The People” - and not for the government, which a well-regulated militia (National Guard) would be.
I’m glad that you have made it clear that Democrats want to ban firearms. Sounds like voting for Democrats is a vote for gun-banners. :eek: The Democrats recently lost the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate, and very few Democrat candidates are willing to take on the 2nd Amendment supporters and over a hundred million gun owners who vote.
People should vote for the candidates of the party that best represents their personal interests. And people should recall politicians, as they did recently over Colorado’s anti-2nd, anti-self-defense, pro-gun-ban legislation, when politicians do not represent the voters personal interests.
There’s also abundant evidence that the ability to create scenes, like those depicted on the surface of the Moon, was possible during the time in question. E.g., 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Now we have both made two completely true and two completely irrelevant observations. The lunar landings happened and there’s no positive, causitive correlation between gun prevalence and homicide rates.
