Some gun related questions for liberals:

If Democrats want more control, why do they promote women having abortion rights? If Republicans care about freedom, how come they want to control women?

 

Not sure where this is going, I'm not anti gun and I don't mess around with bears. I just think the broader issue is rights because when you start cherry picking those to fit your singular view of how we should be living you are giving up something that you will not get back so easily as you surrendered it.

I'm very old and your 'bully' story was old when I was a kid.

I think we are on the same side though, I'm just not doing a very good job of explaining what I mean.

 

An "assault weapon" is, literally, any weapon that is used to assault another person.

I think that it is noteworthy that the deadliest "assault weapon" per incident was no type of firearm at all.
It was a simple type of Molotov cocktail that killed 87 people because the killer couldn't find one of those readily available guns to kill just one person; his ex girlfriend.(1)

I hope we can agree that a determined killer will find a way to kill regardless of his ability to find a gun.

My concern is that when determined killers like the one in the "Happy Land Fire" can't find a gun to kill just one person, they will resort to any number of readily available and easily made WMDs such as home made bombs, Anthrax, Molotov cocktails and Bio-Chem WMDs that kill more people than just their intended target

While people are currently talking about school shootings, I think that it is important to note that the deadliest school mass killing, too, was not done with any type of firearm but was done with a home made bomb(2) as far back as 1927.
Of all the heavily hyped school shootings, not one has been as deadly as this crude WMD that happened so long ago.

My concern is that if and when guns become less readily available, determined mass killers will simply turn to crude and more deadly WMDs, then, our homicide rate will be even higher.

I believe that it is far more important to focus on the determined killers by making mental health care more accessible and more affordable rather than adding to the existing thousands of feel-good-do-nothing gun laws.

Thanks,




(1) "Happy Land fire"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

EXCERPT "González went to an Amoco gas station, then returned to the establishment with a plastic container with $1 worth of gasoline.[2][4] He spread the fuel at the base of a staircase, the only access into the club, and then ignited the gasoline.[5]

Eighty-seven people died in the resulting fire."CONTINUED


(2) "The 1927 Bombing That Remains America’s Deadliest School Massacre"

"Ninety years ago, a school in Bath, Michigan was rigged with explosives in a brutal act that stunned the town"

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...chool-massacre-180963355/#KSipwm4IUrIbB9uc.99

EXCERPTS "In the end 44 people died, 38 of them students. It wasn’t the first bombing in the country’s history—at least eight were killed during the Haymarket Square rally in Chicago in 1886, and 30 when a bomb exploded in Manhattan in 1920. But none had been so deadly as this, or affected so many children."CONTINUED

 

Struck me as BS.

 

It does when you know there is no one definition.

 

"Heavily hyped" is profound understatement...

 

The problem with the 2nd is the wording makes its meaning unclear.

The Bill of Rights was put in place to stop federal and state governments from passing legislation that infringed on basic rights.

When the United Empire Loyalists fled to Nova Scotia after the Revolutionary War, the Brits gave every settler grain, nails, axes, etc.—things settlers would need to survive—but they only provided one musket for every five families. Why? Because they didn't trust the migrants.

 

The bully story may have happened before, this one- in front of my eyes. And of course the issue is rights, including the right to be safe and free from crime and corruption.
Sad part is that it seems there are always people attacking those rights, and if we don't defend them- we won't have them.

We're are on the same side. I'm "old" too, if 80 is old.

 

I don't tend to directly respond to hypotheticals which are so impossible to happen that they are worthless. Sort of like saying IF YOU COULD TRAVEL TIME

 

Gun control works to do exactly what anti gun activists want-to harass lawful gun ownership along with being useful to pander to low wattage voters who actually think restricting only honest people from doing something that is not malum per se, will somehow deter those who already commit murder or armed robbery

 

Then how do you ban assault weapons if you can't even define what an assault weapon is?
If it looks mean?
If it has a carbon fiber stock?
If it has a magazine?
Is it black?
Whats next? Assault pistols?

 

It's ancient, I'm only 78.

 

Well, like I've said, they just want to abolish gun ownership. They don't give a **** about saving lives.

 

Holy ****! I had to look that up...lol

 

It's California

 

They know what they're banning. Note Pelosi is calling for banning "assault-style" weapons. It's ludicrous because they're nibbling at the edges of a real gun ban.

If we're going to have gun ownership, we should license people the way we do drivers. You can't have weapons without a license that involves a bit of basic firearms knowledge, a criminal records check and a test for senility if you're old. I'd like to see a law that ends bans on "assault-style" weapons at the same time it creates a firearms license. If anti-gun types want cooperation on firearms licenses, I think they need to swear off banning guns in no uncertain terms. Will they? I don't think so.

Who knows? The same can be said about anti-abortion types. I can't say I really trust any of them. I'd feel better if their supporters evidenced integrity and insistence on integrity in the people they back.

 

So unless a law stop's something 100% it doesn't work. Got it.

 

None of this changes the fact that guns are what is most used.

 

If gun control laws worked, there wouldn't be any need for more gun control laws...lol

 

If murder laws worked, there wouldn't be any need for more murder laws...lol
If drug laws worked, there wouldn't be any need for more drug laws...lol
If theft laws worked, there wouldn't be any need for more theft laws...lol

And on and on and on.

 

Harass gun owners? No, they just want to take away most firearms. There's evidence that banning firearms would cut the murder rate, maybe even the suicide rate, too. Since they see little value in possessing firearms, they have no compunction about passing laws that would put gun owners in jail.

Ban alcohol? We tried that! Ban drugs? We still do. Ban abortion? Some are determined to do that. Kids used to drive at 16. Not these days in many states. Doddering old people drive, however.

Lots of dimbulbs on both sides.

 

I'm afraid you've missed the whole point of my comment in that the inability to get a gun will not stop a determined killer's commitment to kill either one person or many.

Neither of the killers in the two examples I cited used any type of firearm yet they succeeded in killing more people than if they had a gun.

Finally, there are over 50 countries around the world(1) that prohibit private gun ownership and they have higher homicide rates than the US. That's why I think that addressing the violence in our society would be more effective than attempting to change human behavior by banning inanimate objects;
..... it didn't work with booze, it doesn't work with dope and it won't work with more cheap n' easy, feel-good-do-nothing gun control laws.

Thanks,


(1) "Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people) - Country Ranking"
https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/rankings

 

Which does not negate the fact that guns are what is most used no matter how much you want it to.

 

Yeah, it was never intended to keep you from getting shot, just to protect you from being hospitalized or killed.

 

We don't have more murder laws...lol. Besides, murder isn't a right. Gun ownership is.