A Sane Discussion About Gun Violence

[Sparko]

Sparko, that's a straw man. Nobody in favor of gun control thinks it will "legislate crime away". People in favor of gun control think it will reduce the number of victims, not stop attacks entirely.

As you can see that doesn't work. Take away guns and people use knives. Then you need "knife control." What's next?

The problem isn't with the weapons, it is with people. Certain people. Who we call "criminals" will use whatever is handy to commit their crimes. And no amount of taking things away from law abiding citizens will make a difference. You reduce shooting victims and increase stabbing victims. You decrease stabbing victims and you increase blunt force victims, or poison victims.

Evil people will find a way to be evil.

[Sparko]

Always happy to oblige...

Yep. I appreciate it.

[carpedm9587]

Yep. I appreciate it.

No problem!

[Sparko]

No problem!

great.

[JimL]

As you can see that doesn't work. Take away guns and people use knives. Then you need "knife control." What's next?

The problem isn't with the weapons, it is with people. Certain people. Who we call "criminals" will use whatever is handy to commit their crimes. And no amount of taking things away from law abiding citizens will make a difference. You reduce shooting victims and increase stabbing victims. You decrease stabbing victims and you increase blunt force victims, or poison victims.

Evil people will find a way to be evil.

The problem is with both people and with weapons. People are law abiding citizens, they aren't criminals, until they commit a criminal act, just like mass murderers aren't mass murderers until they mass murder. And until and unless you want to argue that the government shouldn't be allowed to regulate the possession and use of surface to air missiles, tanks, nuclear weapons, etc. etc. then your argument concerning the regulation of the sale and possession assault weapons is a loser.

Besides that, we already know that your argument is false, assault weapons were already banned once before, for ten years, and there were less such attacks.

[Jedidiah]

Sparko, that's a straw man. Nobody in favor of gun control thinks it will "legislate crime away". People in favor of gun control think it will reduce the number of victims, not stop attacks entirely.

People in favor of gun control are wrong about a number of other things as well.

[Jedidiah]

Sparko, that's a straw man. Nobody in favor of gun control thinks it will "legislate crime away". People in favor of gun control think it will reduce the number of victims, not stop attacks entirely.

guns2.jpg

http://www.kalb.com/content/news/Uta...476130423.html

[carpedm9587]

great.

I am SO glad you think so.

[carpedm9587]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]26903[/ATTACH]

http://www.kalb.com/content/news/Uta...476130423.html

Or, perhaps, most bombs are already illegal, so the story is about the loss of life and the trajedy that reflects. In a country where thosands of people lose their life each day to automobiles, preventable cancer, gun violence, drugs, etc. A certain amount of numbness has set in.

But when the death is due to gun violence the discussion becomes about the combination of the loss of life AND the status of most firearms as permissible, untrackable, and the never ending push of the NRA to increase their availability.

I think it's safe to say, if a bomb was set off in a school, and the NBA (National Bomb Association) was advocating for solving the problem by making bombs more readily available and perhaps even equipping teachers with bombs, the coverage would be a tad different.

[Jedidiah]

Or, perhaps, most bombs are already illegal, so the story is about the loss of life and the trajedy that reflects. In a country where thosands of people lose their life each day to automobiles, preventable cancer, gun violence, drugs, etc. A certain amount of numbness has set in.

But when the death is due to gun violence the discussion becomes about the combination of the loss of life AND the status of most firearms as permissible, untrackable, and the never ending push of the NRA to increase their availability.

I think it's safe to say, if a bomb was set off in a school, and the NBA (National Bomb Association) was advocating for solving the problem by making bombs more readily available and perhaps even equipping teachers with bombs, the coverage would be a tad different.

So much for your honest and open mindedness. This not only positively blames gun availability as THE big cause, but totally distorts the honest innocent actions of the NRA in a dishonest way.

I see that you have not yet "had time" to examine the 101 million dollar study I pointed out to you. If you do I expect a similar distortion in your handling of that.

Color me disappointed in you.

[Cow Poke]

...And until and unless you want to argue that the government shouldn't be allowed to regulate the possession and use of surface to air missiles, tanks, nuclear weapons, etc. etc. then your argument concerning the regulation of the sale and possession assault weapons is a loser.

This is SoS - Stupidity on Steroids

[Psychic Missile]

As you can see that doesn't work. Take away guns and people use knives. Then you need "knife control." What's next?

The problem isn't with the weapons, it is with people. Certain people. Who we call "criminals" will use whatever is handy to commit their crimes. And no amount of taking things away from law abiding citizens will make a difference. You reduce shooting victims and increase stabbing victims. You decrease stabbing victims and you increase blunt force victims, or poison victims.

Evil people will find a way to be evil.

I haven't seen how it doesn't work. Knives have less capacity for damage than guns do. That has been the issue the whole time.

[Psychic Missile]

People in favor of gun control are wrong about a number of other things as well.

This statement of yours doesn't add anything to the discussion.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]26903[/ATTACH]

http://www.kalb.com/content/news/Uta...476130423.html

A kid brings a bomb to school and is caught before setting it off. The media doesn't widely report on it. Why?

1. All mass media companies have an agenda to ban all firearms and will stop their reporters from covering any other kind of violence in schools.

2. Nobody was injured or killed so it's not something most people would want to know about.

[carpedm9587]

So much for your honest and open mindedness. This not only positively blames gun availability as THE big cause, but totally distorts the honest innocent actions of the NRA in a dishonest way.

I see that you have not yet "had time" to examine the 101 million dollar study I pointed out to you. If you do I expect a similar distortion in your handling of that.

Color me disappointed in you.

You are welcome to be disappointed, Jedidiah - but I have never been secretive about the fact that I believe the NRA to be a lobbying organization that is almost maniacally focused on supporting the gun industry, promoting any legislation that will advance gun availability, and block any action/legislation that can even vaguely be used to restrict gun rights. They, and the gun industry itself, have the same relationship to guns that the lead industry had to promoting lead paint, and the tobacoo industry had to promoting cigarettes, etc. The ONLY difference between them, that I can see, is that we do not have a body of impartial evidence to help us determine what the root causes of gun violence actually are, or the best paths to reducing it. But then again, the NRA is one of the major forces responsible for that, because they are a primary lobbyist to reducing the availability of funding for such studies.

And my post said nothing about positively blaming gun available as "the big cause." I don't know where or how you read that into my post, but it's not there.

[Sparko]

The problem is with both people and with weapons. People are law abiding citizens, they aren't criminals, until they commit a criminal act, just like mass murderers aren't mass murderers until they mass murder. And until and unless you want to argue that the government shouldn't be allowed to regulate the possession and use of surface to air missiles, tanks, nuclear weapons, etc. etc. then your argument concerning the regulation of the sale and possession assault weapons is a loser.

Besides that, we already know that your argument is false, assault weapons were already banned once before, for ten years, and there were less such attacks.

So in your perfect world the Police would work like in Minority Report, where they came and arrested you before you committed a crime.

I bet if we just went ahead and put everyone in prison preemptively, crime would go WAY down!


And AR-15s are not assault weapons. Actual assault weapons are still banned.

And my cite above shows exactly what happens when you ban guns: People turn to knives and then start complaining that they need Knife Control! I guess after they ban metal kitchen kitchen utensils, we will have people making shivs out of sporks like they do in prison.