Guns and stuff

[2ndRateMind]

One's heart goes out the bereft relatives and blameless wounded of Las Vegas. And one's prayers for the innocent dead.

Yet, one notices that this is hardly an isolated occurrence. Quite why civilians need a right to buy and bear arms in the form of automatic assault weapons evades me. The more that are sold, the more likely they will fall into the hands of the mentally unstable, the criminal, and the downright malicious. No civilised country could or should or would tolerate such lax gun laws for long.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Peter]

Sometimes it's revealing to test the limits of a problem. Clearly if guns didn't exist there would be no gun violence. This fact should make it very difficult to logically argue that fewer guns would not result in less gun violence.
We already outlaw rocket launchers for private citizens so all we're really talking about is where to set the limit on legal firepower.
Personally, short of a zombie apocalypse, I see no reason why anybody needs enough firepower to kill or wound 500+ people in 10 minutes.
I actually had a colleague tell me that if the maniac didn't use guns in Las Vegas he would have used knives. Throwing knives I presume.

[Wootah]

[Replying to 2ndRateMind]

How can you love without a mind first?

[Bust Nak]

History shows to me at least that we get to choose between
small scale violence of the kind we saw in Las Vegas or genocidal massacres of unarmed civilian populations as per the Armenians.

That choice is a mere illusion - you don't stand a chance if the US armed forces decides to turn on the civilian population, armed or otherwise.

Choose: the feeling of security and I emphasize the word "feeling" or the small scale violence as seen in Las Vegas?

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to 2ndRateMind]

How can you love without a mind first?

Love is a matter of the heart, not the mind.

I actually think this is where most unbelievers go wrong. They look for objective evidence, objective proof that God exists. They want to satisfy their minds. But really, the quest for supreme and ultimate love is a quest of the heart, and it's the heart that needs and will find that satisfaction through faith, and the mind can only get in the way.

But once you have that faith, then it is that reason and logic come into play, and then it is that one can seek to make sense of God, and His world, and His people. And then, and only then, is one truly live to the world and its awesome potential.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

Sometimes it's revealing to test the limits of a problem. Clearly if guns didn't exist there would be no gun violence. This fact should make it very difficult to logically argue that fewer guns would not result in less gun violence.
We already outlaw rocket launchers for private citizens so all we're really talking about is where to set the limit on legal firepower.
Personally, short of a zombie apocalypse, I see no reason why anybody needs enough firepower to kill or wound 500+ people in 10 minutes.
I actually had a colleague tell me that if the maniac didn't use guns in Las Vegas he would have used knives. Throwing knives I presume.

Bravo.

For every 1 person that dies in Canada from gun crime, per 100,000 population, 8 die in the US. For every one person that dies in the UK from gun crime, 40 die in the US. I love you guys; I don't want you dieing in random massacres. But you need to decide for yourselves that you love each other more than you love the right to keep and bear arms in the form of automatic assault weaponry.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[bluethread]

Sometimes it's revealing to test the limits of a problem. Clearly if guns didn't exist there would be no gun violence. This fact should make it very difficult to logically argue that fewer guns would not result in less gun violence.
We already outlaw rocket launchers for private citizens so all we're really talking about is where to set the limit on legal firepower.
Personally, short of a zombie apocalypse, I see no reason why anybody needs enough firepower to kill or wound 500+ people in 10 minutes.
I actually had a colleague tell me that if the maniac didn't use guns in Las Vegas he would have used knives. Throwing knives I presume.

Bravo.

For every 1 person that dies in Canada from gun crime, per 100,000 population, 8 die in the US. For every one person that dies in the UK from gun crime, 40 die in the US. I love you guys; I don't want you dieing in random massacres. But you need to decide for yourselves that you love each other more than you love the right to keep and bear arms in the form of automatic assault weaponry.

Best wishes, 2RM.

There are two problems here. First, Peter presumes that illegal mean nonexistent. How is it that a law can make fire arms not exist? Laws do not end the existence of any commodity that is in demand. The only thing it does is determine the degree to which the commodity is traded on the open market. All commodities that are in demand are traded on the black market. We do outlaw rocket launchers for private citizen, but rocket launcher are available on the black market. The natural deterrence against rocket launchers is not the fact that they are illegal, it is the fact that they are unwieldy and therefore easily detectable.

Second, 2ndRateMind, according to the CDC

1. Mass shootings account for less than 2% of gun deaths.
2. The majority of gun deaths are suicides, two-thirds.
3. Firearms homicides per 100,000 is 3.5.

As one expands the number of circumstances the numbers naturally go up and there is room for greater debate. However, the argument that federal gun legislation is going to be able to control all circumstances or stop mass murders is just not supported by the evidence.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

I did. History is on my side. Massacre after massacre after massacre. Government after government dearming the civilian populations first.

Imagine an armed German population and the history books for 1933 was that a maniac lone gunman had killed up and coming progressive political leader Adolph Hitler.

It's just defeatist mentality to talk the way you are. Imagine Winston Churchill decided to surrender.

The thing is you are more pro gun than me. The army only has guns through taxation. If they didn't have guns and used the threat of violence who would ever pay their taxes?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 24 by 2ndRateMind]

I can't help you if you overstep logic so easily. Minds have to come first.

[Wootah]

This is just speculation but I was watching just now the movie good kill and learned (assuming the movie has some reality) that the US man their drones from Las Vegas. I still think this attack is ISIS related (speculation and will accept facts when we know).

Also if we can discuss some of the stuff on the stuff side of guns and stuff I don't think multicultural societies can continue to think that any war cannot also be fought at home.

[Peter]

Sometimes it's revealing to test the limits of a problem. Clearly if guns didn't exist there would be no gun violence. This fact should make it very difficult to logically argue that fewer guns would not result in less gun violence.
We already outlaw rocket launchers for private citizens so all we're really talking about is where to set the limit on legal firepower.
Personally, short of a zombie apocalypse, I see no reason why anybody needs enough firepower to kill or wound 500+ people in 10 minutes.
I actually had a colleague tell me that if the maniac didn't use guns in Las Vegas he would have used knives. Throwing knives I presume.

Bravo.

For every 1 person that dies in Canada from gun crime, per 100,000 population, 8 die in the US. For every one person that dies in the UK from gun crime, 40 die in the US. I love you guys; I don't want you dieing in random massacres. But you need to decide for yourselves that you love each other more than you love the right to keep and bear arms in the form of automatic assault weaponry.

Best wishes, 2RM.

However, the argument that federal gun legislation is going to be able to control all circumstances or stop mass murders is just not supported by the evidence.

Who made that argument? I simply pointed out that it's very difficult to argue that fewer guns will not result in less gun violence since we know that zero guns results in zero gun violence.