Because "regular people" don't deserve that kind of power.
Gun Control
- Thread starter larryselbows
- Start date
Because "regular people" don't deserve that kind of power.
We don't care if carrying increases our threat of assault. We care that owning weapons gives us more of a fighting chance against tramatic violence.
If you want to take your chances against something like the wifi murders then be my guest. My family won't as long as I'm alive.
Every unnecessary death is a tragedy. Demographic factors can reverse themselves. The right is just as well preserved by 6 bullets as 60, so it's not in danger. Etc.
The individual facts? Sure, why not? It's highly selective and misleading, but who cares about that?
What makes you think there is only one problem?
Oh go cry a river.
I disagree. That is exceedingly easy to get around has been talked about in this very thread extensively. It does not promote or prevent anything. Just another measure of control that we do not need.
Really, it's a problem of arms control.
The guns aren't the problem, and the people really aren't the problem - it's their arms that cause the trouble.
We need to figure this out
The NIH study didn't look at an increase in the threat of assault, it looked at the results of actual assaults (in that every member of both groups had been assaulted). The finding was that carrying gun correlated to the assault being worse for the person carrying the gun. So, there is "more of a fighting chance" of suffering a serious injury.
As I said before, this study is just one data point, and I'm not pretending its a last or definitive word. But you should not pretend it says something other than what it does say. For the population in Philadelphia that were victims of a crime, possession of a gun was correlated to having more serious injuries.
You mean this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hi-Fi_murders
Wow, you're quaking in fear over a crime that happened 40 years ago? Do you really think that if any particular victim in that crime had had a gun, the crime would have been prevented?
Maybe the Philadelphia generalizes, maybe it doesn't. I'm not going to let my fear of twice-in-a-century crimes scare me into taking risks that make things more dangerous for me or my family.
You mistake boredom for being upset. That sort of misrepresentation is so standard, it generates little emotional reaction anymore.
I agree it's easy for criminals to get around, when they carefully plan an attempt at mass murder, and such efforts only slow them down a little. A little is still better than not at all. However, I responded to a comment about your right, and said your right was as easily defended with 6 bullets as 60. You didn't offer any evidence that disagreed.
The only part about gun control that makes sense to me is to try and keep guns out of the hands of people with dangerous, violent mental illnesses or a history of violent crime.
Why is a death caused by a car accident any better than a death from a gun wound? Or a staff incention? Or a beating with a bat? Or a knifing? Or intentionally killing with a car?
IMO the positives outweigh the negatives.
On the unnecessary death thing, I don't understand why people believe that those predisposed to violent acts are going to become pacifists if firearms become more restricted. I wonder even if guns were completely and effectively banned if the rate of violent crime would significantly decrease.
Why is a death caused by a car accident any better than a death from a gun wound? Or a staff incention? Or a beating with a bat? Or a knifing? Or intentionally killing with a car?
IMO the positives outweigh the negatives.
On the unnecessary death thing, I don't understand why people believe that those predisposed to violent acts are going to become pacifists if firearms become more restricted. I wonder even if guns were completely and effectively banned if the rate of violent crime would significantly decrease.
Because I do not have to. I have the right to have a 30 round magazine. Period.
That is what I am saying. You do not have to agree or even like it.
Breaking news! A new study shows that those who live with or near domesticated dogs are far more likely to get mauled by a dog than those who live much further away from dogs.
I also hear there's a study coming out about auto accidents being highly correlated with those who drive.
I also hear there's a study coming out about auto accidents being highly correlated with those who drive.
As was previously discussed in this thread, even if violent crimes don't decrease, the rate of serious injury and death from violent crimes would decrease.
I have no problem with you inventing specific rights from thin air.
No doubt that's all true.
Are you saying you agree that if you carry a gun, you're more likely to be seriously hurt if you are the victim of a crime?
I however, do have a problem with people attempting to limit the rights I do have. Limiting the size of a clip or mag that I can have for my weapon is no different in my eyes than attempting to ban .9mms outright.
You can argue about it in any way you like but it is an attempt to limit the 2nd amendment by people who do not want me to have the right to own it. You can also play games with the word "right" but I maintain that I have that right.
There are millions of problems. I thought we were discussing gun related deaths. That's one problem.
You're getting much lazier with your smoke screens, Brow.
Really, you see no difference at all between saying "you can carry a gun with no more than 6 bullets" and "you may not have a gun at all"?
Sorry, I should have been more clear for you. What makes you think there is only one problem involved in the number of gun-related deaths? If deaths are decreasing from one cause, does that mean others causes have no impact?
They both attempt to limit my right.