no, you’re wrong. He could have killed a lot more people with a car. He then could have left the area to repeat process.
I grew up in that same era - hunting after school and reading The American Rifleman.
Violence is part of the issue, but to me it comes down to responsible ownership. We could have knives and guns at school because we knew better than to stick them in each other or shoot at each other.
We seem to have lost a lot of that. I, and every gun owner I know, would claim to be a responsible owner (I’m sure Mrs Lanza felt she was responsible too). Yet guns are still used irresponsibly.
Bans of weapons or the 2nd will not happen. How do we insure responsible gun ownership? Does responsible ownership include responsible sales?
Yes, he could have driven his mother’s SUV right into the school and run down everyone in every classroom. Gawdamm …
This is what we’re up against, people.
Well, why not, do you think? Because too many people lack the moral courage to do it? You may be right, but surrendering right at the beginning is no way to win a fight.
You refer to responsibility and “knowing better” in gun ownership. Great ideas, those. Now, what do they have to do with killings in anger, or massacres by the mentally ill who are nonetheless allowed access to lethal weapons?
It wasn’t meant to be an argument. It was meant to point out that you are moving the goalposts. You asked for specifics, you got them, and then you dismissed them because they were specifics. If it makes you feel better, here’s the full paragrpaph. It changes nothing:
Underlining added to relate your original emphasis of those words.
John, do you have something to add to this discussion or don’t you?
See: Tasers, pepper spray. They do not normally kill or cause serious injury.
Neither are they very effective compared to guns. Tasers: unreliable, one-shot, heavy clothing protects against it. Pepper spray - unreliable, if you’re attacked the attacker can (and often does, want cites?) continue even after being sprayed.
There is a reason why the gun is called an “equalizer”. Neither tasers nor pepper sprays even come close.
But again, you claimed that guns “have only one purpose” and cars don’t. I showed you that guns also have another purpose, and are quite effective in that purpose. Did that convince you in the wrongness of your statement?
Not at all. A gun can only be used to kill or seriously injure people. The motives peope may have for attempting to kill or seriously injure people may vary. But that does not change its purpose. Are we arguing semantics here?
Wrong. In quite a few cases of self-defense a gun was used without killing or seriously injuring people. Want cites?
Actually in the vast majority of cases, luckily for us humans; most humans have no desire to kill.
OR, and I’m just throwing it out because you you don’t bother to ready the thread I posted (post 87): “The shooter could have borrowed his mother’s car and run over 100 kids standing in line waiting for a bus”.
I’m being kind here despite your feeble attempt at attacking me.
What we’re up against are knee-jerk internet know-it-alls who can’t be bothered with a discussion even when a point was already brought up.
BTW, I was the second person to point out how easy it would be to kill using a car. The shooter had to go out of his way to break into a school. There is no logic to the idea that taking the gun away would in any way stop the mass killing. All it changes is the method used.
Really? No one uses guns for hunting? Target shooting? Competitive shooting? Skeet/Trap/Sporting Clays don’t exist? Certain Olympic events don’t exist?
The last two posts are quintessential examples of the excluded-middle fallacy, or possibly just simple denial and avoidance, and that’s the kindest description possible for them.
[QUOTE=jasg]
Bans of weapons or the 2nd will not happen.
[/QUOTE]
Why? History and lack of political will. We are far from the beginning of a fight… (and characterizing this as a fight gets us off on the wrong foot)
I would argue that the mentally ill may never be responsible, but in the current case, the mother was irresponsible for allowing her son access to the weapons. If she was mentally ill, then the sales process failed. In my ideal world, if she had survived she would be prosecuted for felony murder.
As for anger, I have nothing better than the waiting periods and background checks we already have.
so basically you can’t post an argument against what was said except in the form of commentary on the posters. Sounds to me like you ran out of argument and are now reduced to insults.
Would you please help me out by fleshing out the ideas refered to in this post?
I am not following your train of thought.
I was pointing out that YOUR so-called argument is not worthy of respect, and that YOU had to resort to avoiding the point entirely instead. :rolleyes:
Sometimes one is wrong. That’s life. Accept it.
FE3O4ENAIL, since you’re having trouble with this cognitive dissonance stuff too: At its base, it’s about saving the most lives possible, isn’t it? The number of lives saved by guns is small enough that you have to list individual incidents in order to tell yourself you’re making a point. The number of lives cost by guns is much, much higher, of course, as the previous links show. So, your belief that you’re making a good point is true, it’s just the opposite of the point you think you’re making.
OK, what foot would be the right one?
How about not letting the damn things be available in the first place? Is that an option for you?
No, you were given a study, by a respectable scientist, that shows that millions of crimes are prevented and thousands of murders. But you don’t accept it because it is statistics. Your problem, I guess.
I bet you accepted Obama’s “jobs saved” numbers though.
No, you referred to an *inference *about prevention, as if that compares to actual facts.
Did you accept the Obama jobs argument? To be logically consistent, you’d have to, right?