| From | Message |
|---|
|
 More people killed with hammers and clubs each year than rifles
nation.foxnews.com
Guys we need to create a registry so we know who owns hammers and club like objects.
I own a hammer. It's purple. (not joking)
|
|
rifles
it is handguns most people are concerned with.
|
dmaestro
03-Jan-13, 13:02
|
And furthermore when was the last time a mass killer killed dozens with a hammer! That is the point. It takes no effort to pull a trigger and slaughter.
|
|
... I understand 2-A and its historical importance for 18th Century America, and I understand the sport of hunting or target practicing ... even protection in one's home from intruders. But, help me understand the vehemence that pro-2-A folks have for keeping weapons, for creating emotional responses in case weapons are "taken" by someone, and for the basis of conspiracies they depict. I appreciate the emotional pride and liberties, but I don't yet understand either the logic or the utter vehemence of their unyielding defense for keeping larger than sport or home defense sized weapons. Can someone help me out here?
|
|
Dm
So you're saying that the individual doesn't matter. As in, individuals who are killed at different times aren't important enough to care about. But a group of 20 is.
Basically, murder only becomes a problem when more than a certain number of people are killed at once.
So, why aren't we banning large aircraft or skyscrapers again?
|
|
Zorroloco
It seems like there is nothing that can be done about handguns though. A full ban in DC didn't stop shootings, and, it was recently overturned by the Supreme Court.
|
|
tat
i am not arguing for a ban. i am just pointing out the fallacy of your argument. and dm is right. a rock can kill people, so can a pencil. but we do not ban them. we do try to ban assault rifles and e-coli laden hamburgers because they have the ability to kill large numbers of people.
yes. it is gray area. cope with it. not everything is clear cut.
|
|
Chaz
Why were firearms necessary and important in the 18th century?
|
|
Zorroloco
That's where we differ I guess. Seems pretty clear cut to me.
|
|
Can someone explain the logic behind people who are pro-choice supporting gun control? I mean, they're giving people a license to kill their own baby and totally flip out about violating a woman's right to choose.......but those same women don't have a right to choose whether or not to own a certain firearm? Just because the same type of firearm might be used in a shooting to kill children that, for all we know, were almost aborted as fetuses.
|
|
tat
classic misdirection. killing a 9 week old fetus is not the same as killing a human being. a dog has more sense of identity than a 9-12 week fetus.
|
|
tat
clear cut? really? so you are saying nothing dangerous should be illegal or everything dangerous should be illegal?
|
|
Okay, so pro-choicers assume women have the cognitive ability to decide whether or not they can be a parent, but can't own a gun? I'm confused.
It's not misdirecting. It's pointing out how flawed and useless any kind of gun control is.
|
|
Zorroloco
Everything can be dangerous though! If we regulate guns because they are dangerous, then aren't we saying that murderers who use them (after they are banned) aren't responsible for their actions? I mean why else would we ban them?
I just see so much that is "wrong" with gun control......
|
dmaestro
04-Jan-13, 22:12
|
Gun deaths are accelerating and are exceeding traffic deaths in states like Az where carry guns is considered sacred. Not that the senseless gun deaths of right wingers carrying guns is a big concern per se; live by the sword, die by the sword, a deserved fate. No I am concerned with the killing of innocent people not carrying guns due to lax gun laws.
|
|
So tat, should North Korea and Iran be allowed to have nukes? Just curious.
|
|
Don't stop there tugger, everybody should be allowed to have nukes. The next time somebody breaks into my house I'm going to eradicate him and nine city blocks.
|
Log in 
