Such is the nature of the internets.at the amateur cons utional scholars in here.
#fullof
Leaving us STILL with the question, aside from interpretations of the cons ution:
How many people are we willing to sacrifice on the altar of gun ownership every year?
As many as it takes imo.
Takes to what?
You can frame pretty much anything that way: vehicles, airplanes, alcohol, knives, hammers etc etc.
I guess the answer to the question is fairly obvious. When the bad that comes with freedoms starts to actually negatively affect a significant size of the population enough to where they're willing to give them up, is when guns will be confiscated, banned, whatever.
And no matter what scare-tactics & how much fear mongering you & the left media do to try to make this a reality, the actual reality is death caused by mass shooting is extremely, extremely, EXTREMELY rare.
The question I have for you is, what's the cut-off number of deaths allowable by guns? At what arbitrary point do guns become worth banning?
To keep our cons utionally guaranteed rights.
So, one Sandy Hook type massacre a week. You'd be cool with that?
The second amendment isn't very long. People conveniently choose to interpret it however they need to in an effort to validate their beliefs. My issue with the fight is that they ignore the first half of what is already a short amendment
#fullof
I'm always cool with hypothetical scenarios that are never going to happen.
Ok.
understood.
Well a ridiculous response like whatever it takes begs for some equally ridiculous hypotheticals. How about this one?
your wife and all her staff get mowed down in her practice by a mentally unstable patient, while you sit at home, unemployed?
You cool with that one?
And here I thought CC and TSA being pedo protectors was de able. Not much compared to a person who think 20 infants being massacred is justified in order for men with small penises to have the ability to kill things from a distance.
Infants?
That's been a daily possibility for 20 years and hasn't changed my (nor my wife's) support of the 2nd amendment so I doubt even that scenario would cause me to blame the gun instead of the person.
Why are you always obsessed with my wife and the fact that I make more than you sitting on my ass at home?
I got a little overzealous. Young children. But according to SnakeBoy it wouldn't matter, right?
How many thousands of people have to die for this right every year again?
It is sitting at about 33,000.
Guns make it easy for people to kill people. The "guns don't kill people" bull doesn't really fly, because it is dishonest in that way.
Without the means to make it easy to kill people, not as many people would be killed.
Pretty ing straightforward. Introducing an incredibly lethal option into any situation, means that you will have that option excerized.
So the only reasonable question then, is how many dead corpses you are comfortable with. I say 33,000+ every year is too many.
Ah.
So you would weigh tens of thousands of lives sacrificed every year so that we can own guns.
That is an answer.
or maybe a million?
"as many" doesn't really limit it.
Of course we can measure the cost, in millions of lives, over decades.
We can indeed.
I think we sacrifice too many people to personal vehicles in the same way. We could just as easily spend trillions on other modes of transportation with lower rates of deaths per passenger mile.
30,000 + dead every year for personal convenience seems pretty ing steep.
30,000 + dead every year for some hypothetical bull rebellion myth seems not only steep but morally outrageous.
More than one per day, depending on how one is willing to define it. It happens so often it doesn't make national news.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us...ters.html?_r=0
It isn't though, mass shooting that you have to worry about, it is the one on one stuff.
That said, I agree with you, the odds of dying in a mass shooting are pretty small. For this reason, I am all for letting in 100,000+ Syrian refugees. The danger of ISIS is extremely overblown, versus the good of providing shelter for people whose lives would be arguably threatened otherwise.
I am not in favor of banning firearms entirely. I am in favor of regulating them a lot like cars. Classes, licenses, and taxes. If you want to own it, you take personal responsibility for it.
Its probably worse that children had to see all that going down.
I'm for a battery of tests (IQ, mental), back ground checks, licensing, and licensing renewal (annually or biannually).
Gun laws are way too lax.
That said, if it's mass killings (and not just shootings) that were trying to tackle I think the general populace, police, teachers, and health professionals need to be better educated on how to asses whether someone's behavior warrants taking it up with authorities. These crazy guys slip through the cracks when usually they leave a trail of evidence, that people just ignore or take for granted. IMO that's the biggest problem of them all. Can you imagine how many lives would be saved if people just went to the police?
As far as Syrian refugees, well that's a whole other topic and it and this one don't entirely overlap at numerous important points.
"Classes, licenses, and taxes."
annual registration fee, annual inspection, liability insurance, FIN (firearm identification number) for every single firearm.
penalty for violations: confiscation and destruction of the firearm.
So now only rich people would own guns. Why do you hate the poor?
mah 'merica
So is it safe to assume you favor prohibition because 88,000 people die every year due to alcohol?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote