"The reason it may anger them, is because it's 100% logically sound." Except it's not. Cars are not designed to kill. Guns are. No one ever combines the idea of "mass murder" with cars. And the terrorism examples of suicide bombings and Oklahoma City are intellectually dishonest to any conversation about handguns. Just because other types of deaths occur every day doesn't make the topic of guns on equal footing. It is not the same playing field. Pretending that it's the same as anything else goes back to what I've said twice now: proponents of the status quo, especially related to gun culture, need to admit that horrifying shootings are an acceptable and unavoidable problem that won't go away any time soon. But at least the target shooting hobbyists won't have their constitutional rights infringed. Amen.
"Designed to kill...designed to kill what?" Fine... semantics... designed to destroy? "It's based on a much broader more important principle of individual liberty." Again, I'm not saying we should repeal the 2nd amendment. And I love me some liberty. But the tyrannical acts of harming personal liberties led them to put an amendment in there (based on the English one that only allowed Protestants to own one) were based on the technology of noncealed weapons that took a minute to reload. For a well-regulated militia. "Those actions are the DESIGNS of human beings." Yeah, we know. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Of course guns aren't "designed to kill people," so again I guess we'll just have to settle for a good old "sematics, eh?" Guns intensify and add to the lethality of those violent human designs. The China example from the same date shows this, as do other instances. "What's intellectually dishonest is evading the question of alcohol as a cause of meaningless deaths and as an enabler for homicides. Whether alcohol producs are designed to kill humans or not, the fact is, is that it's deadly." I never addressed it before, so calling that "evading" is kind of weird. But I also agree that alcohol is an enabler and causes a lot of traffic deaths in addition to poor-decision-related deaths. As for the homicide aspect of alcohol, you're right that it's a huge contributor. I'd further state that the availability of alcohol without guns around probably changes the game a bit. But going back to my original post, that's the "culture" aspect of it all. Here we like the alcohol and the guns, which are a pretty deadly mix. As long as we keep pretending it's ok in the name of liberty, we're going to have to suck it up and keep telling ourselves that's just "how it is." What say you to my caveat? Are we just presupposed to have more mass shootings in the U.S.?
Because it is possible to have a conversation about gun violence without delving into all forms of violence. I get that people want to have serious conversations about deep things, but I'm talking about guns and their effect on culture. Not terrorism.
This is the GOP of today - a bunch of extremist gun nuts who can't stand up to zealots like the NRA leadership: Pro-gun senators decline to be on meet the press
I just do not understand how you can be so naive to think outlawing guns is going to stop mentally ill people from doing crazy things or criminals doing likewise. However, as you lump all religious people together and try to remain safe in your utopian world, you fail to address any of the other real issues like societal breakdown, mental illness, etc. You just wish harm to those who do not believe like you. Troll was given to you in this case because it was one of your more predictable posts, only adding the wish for others to burn in hell who believe in the right to bear arms.
Why not address the mentally and spiritually diseased society that produces such lunatics rather than violating our Constitutional rights to go after the tools they use. Restrict access to guns, or even get rid of them altogether, and evil people will find other ways to commit mass murder (see Timothy McVeigh) Get our society in order, and it won't matter what kind of gun people own, or how many of them.
I support gun ownership and specifically the "right to bear arms". We already have limits in place. We don't allow citizens to own rocket launchers or even rocket propelled grenades. Automatic weapons are limited. So, the "right to bear arms" is not absolut . It's time to move that line further to the left in terms of what type of guns are allowed. I firmly believe you can't stop "crazy". Maybe we can limit their damage though. Adam Lanza was in the school for less than 10 minutes before first responders arrived at which point he took his own life. Had this deranged young man walked into the school with a hunting rifle and two pistols or even a shotgun would he have been able to kill 26 people in that time? According to the investigators, the Bushmaster was the predominant weapon used. An examination of the first 7 children showed they were each shot 3-11 times. This guy had hundreds of rounds. One has to wonder which of the 26 victims might be alive if Adam Lanza had to reload every 13 shots rather than 30.
The second amendment protects the people from the government. An armed population acts as a counter to a tyrannical government. Any time you have a gun free zone, that automatically becomes the first target for someone who wants to shoot people.
Just for fun, let's take a contextual look at how Roger "raises a question" and expects a ivil, rational and respectful response in return:
