|
Pulpsmack -> RE: Breaking, 25 People killed in V.T. shooting. (4/18/2007 5:35:25 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zensee
http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm
There you go PulpSmack. Guns murder more people than all other methods combined, in the USA. Your turn to provide some backup for your own "whole-cloth" assertions.
That guns are the "murder" weapon of choice is negligible. YOU DID NOT even mention this until now. Your exact words were, "People with guns KILL more people than people without guns", not "people with guns murder..." and your statistics have not proven that claim regarding the killing. Do I have to get comparative statistics over the things people kill (not murder) each other with or are you ready to concede that guns will not be nearly as high as those other instrumentalities?
That aside, what do you think will happen when guns are taken away from law-abiding citizens? No more murders? No more gun murders? It's funny how those places in Europe that have complete firearms restriction STILL have murders and still have firearms murders no less. You can get into a comparative nation tirade, but that doesn't change the FACT that criminals can and will arm themselves with guns no matter how restrictive the nation's laws are. Are you really so blind that you believe the notion that America would turn into Canada overnight in terms of violent crime if we passed the most restrictive laws nationwide? We cannot keep Mexicans from illegally "jumping the fence", or Chinese, or ... We cannot keep black tar heroin or cocaine or... What makes you think we can keep Sino-Russo Makerov pistols, RPGs, and automatic Kalashnikovs from entering the country and falling into the hands of gangs? Of course, this nation will have access to its own firearms for generations after a permanent ban given the number out there. It is a more absurd, un-winnable proposition than the Alcoholic prohibition of last century.
quote:
You feel more responsible carrying a gun? Bravo. Others feel more like making their problems go away with it. A gun has two ends and just because I choose not to carry one doesn’t mean I have no rights in the matter.
So, why don't you clearly articulate what rights these are that you are being deprived of. Don't give me this feel good equity nonsense. Make the legal argument that me and my kind in our LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED exercises are depriving you of a RIGHT that you are legally permitted to enforce. Please... enlighten us. Otherwise you have another homespun assertion with no foundation whatsoever
quote:
Equating guns to cars (or spoons), because they both cause deaths, IS specious and distractive because cars are not made to kill while guns are. A drunk driver killing someone out of negligence is NOT the same as someone using a weapon for it intended purpose. All things that kill are not created equally or intentionally to that task.
That is absolute nonsense. What is specious is making the argument that the two are severable because of your assertions that guns are only made for killing, and that because they have a nefarious intent, they cannot be compared to any other public health hazard. Bullshit. That's like saying you cannot compare hate crime assaults to other assaults because hate crimes have an added nefarious element. Crime is crime, death is death, and a public health hazard "in need of regulation" doesn't require some requisite level of "evil" in order to be applied analogously. Does it make the crime any less forgivable that the jealous husband ran his cheating wife down with the Benz (which as you assert was not created with the purpose of killing)? What you propose then is legislating morality.
While this man is not the most quotable of individuals, I find the words of Ted Nugent particularly relevant as he said "If guns are simply made for killing, then all of mine are defective". It is your unfounded assertion that guns have no other purpose than killing although I can tell you that is nonsense. There are sportsmen who spend thousands of dollars building pistols and rifles alike that have NO PRACTICAL value as killing instruments, just as there are certain utility knives that although potential weapons, are clearly not intended for that purpose.
Nevertheless, it makes no difference that there is a collection of such weapons out there. The point you and so many others miss is that firearms have a dual use. They save lives just as they take them. They protect just as they destroy. Thus, they can be employed neutrally as in a recreational pastime, like a car is a mode of conveyance. They can be employed nefariously as in a murder weapon, as can a vehicle (both negligently and intentionally). And they can be employed for the greater good, as in a revolver protecting a mother from her abusive, estranged husband who is stalking her when the police cannot act, or as a handful of long arms in the hands of a family defending their livelihood/storefront as a violent riot kicks up in the neighborhood.
A gun is a tool, not some cobra that shoots razor sharp swastikas out of it's eyes when a child looks at it. It can be used for a legitimate/good purpose just as easily as it can be used for a nefarious one. Like many tools it is extremely dangerous if misused/misapplied/negligently handled. And like any other tool it makes no sense to ban them when a small minority of them are the cause of a public health hazard. This is why it is PRECISELY applicable to cars and your boogums about it being evil or mal-intended is nothing more than a fallacy by appealing to emotion (again, the same pitfalls and absurdity that accompany legislating morality). End of story... Checkmate.
|
|
|
|
