Guns Don't Kill People...

[fides' Jack]

Bullets kill people.  

 

I mean, seriously, I can't understand why anyone would think that guns kill people.  

 

Sure, they're capable of killing people, but a FAR GREATER number of people are killed by bullets.  If we ban guns because they are used to kill people, we'd also have to ban other things, like crowbars, shovels, and baseball bats.

[Papist]

Yep. If someone wants to kill, not having a gun will not stop him.

[GregorMendel]

But restricting access to certain military style weapons will certainly hinder anyone trying to kill you.

Also, perhaps Im confused, I didnt know that crowbars, shovels and baseball bats fired bullets, what calliber do they fire?

[KnightofChrist]

But restricting access to certain military style weapons will certainly hinder anyone trying to kill you.

 

Not really. It is incredibly easy to acquire actual military weaponry illegally. Almost as easy as it is to acquire any illegal drugs illegally. The war on guns will be just as successful as the war on drugs.

[EmilyAnn]

:rolleyes:

[PhuturePriest]

:rolleyes:

 

This profound and thoughtful response deserves a high place of honor among the great debates in history.

[EmilyAnn]

This profound and thoughtful response deserves a high place of honor among the great debates in history.

That was my genuine reaction. 

[PhuturePriest]

That was my genuine reaction. 

 

That was my genuine post to your reaction.

[EmilyAnn]

That was my genuine post to your reaction.

 

:rolleyes:

[arfink]

If guns don't kill people, why do people want them?

[GregorMendel]

I can understand why people would want guns for hunting, sport and self protection, all of which would clearly fall under protection of the second amendment.

 

 

What I cant understand is failing to recognize that the acquisition of unreasonably deadly weapons, which would be excessive for hunting, sport, or self protection,  might impose a danger to one's community. What's even scarier is the refusal of others to even acknowledge the possibility of such dangers.

 

 

Having lived in Missouri for the past two years, I will be the first to say that guns are a natural part of american life, and I have met many responsible gun owners during this time. Frankly KoC, you're right, theres nothing we can do about illegal gun acquisition. What we can regulate, however, is the distribution of new and the purchase of old military-style assault weapons.

 

 

If nothing else, we should take fides' Jack's message to heart, and recognize that indeed it is the bullet which takes a life. If it would be too strenuous to regulate the purchases of military-style assault weapons, then we should consider adopting a federal measure regulating the sale of high-capacity magazines similar that which became law in Connecticut last week.

 

Because guns dont scare me, irresponsible people scare me.

[GregorMendel]

And if the regulating of assault weapons or the limiting of their ammunition proves impossible, then at the very least we should make sure that whoever is in possession of such a weapon has no history of criminal activity, psychological impairments, or previous violent acts. 

[KnightofChrist]

I can understand why people would want guns for hunting, sport and self protection, all of which would clearly fall under protection of the second amendment.

 

 

What I cant understand is failing to recognize that the acquisition of unreasonably deadly weapons, which would be excessive for hunting, sport, or self protection,  might impose a danger to one's community. What's even scarier is the refusal of others to even acknowledge the possibility of such dangers.

 

 

Having lived in Missouri for the past two years, I will be the first to say that guns are a natural part of american life, and I have met many responsible gun owners during this time. Frankly KoC, you're right, theres nothing we can do about illegal gun acquisition. What we can regulate, however, is the distribution of new and the purchase of old military-style assault weapons.

 

 

If nothing else, we should take fides' Jack's message to heart, and recognize that indeed it is the bullet which takes a life. If it would be too strenuous to regulate the purchases of military-style assault weapons, then we should consider adopting a federal measure regulating the sale of high-capacity magazines similar that which became law in Connecticut last week.

 

Because guns dont scare me, irresponsible people scare me.

 

It's been done. It's failed, again and again and again. Regulation of guns doesn't stop murderers from murdering, it doesn't decrease the over all murder rate, or crime rate. If anything it seems to increase those rates. I don't personally believe any old Joe should be able to own any gun they wish but the gun war has failed, just like the drug war. And just like the drug war more goverment and regulation isn't the answer. 

[Winchester]

And if the regulating of assault weapons or the limiting of their ammunition proves impossible, then at the very least we should make sure that whoever is in possession of such a weapon has no history of criminal activity, psychological impairments, or previous violent acts. 

 

lol assault weapons. barrel shrouds, pistol grips, the deadly 11th bullet, collapsible stocks, barrels under the magical less deadly 16".

 

 

I don't think any of those things give anyone the right to commit acts of violence. Even magical superhuman double plus good gubbmint agents.

 

"Assault weapon" ammunition is typically less powerful than the ammunition used by full size rifles. Stick to what you know, and stop advocating aggression, please.

Edited April 15, 2013 by Winchester

[GregorMendel]

.... how am I advocating aggression?

 

btw, with regards to ammunition, I am not speaking to its lethality, I am talking about limiting the number of rounds a civilian could possibly shoot in quick succession.