The Gun Conversation

[blotsfan 2,112]

Not everyone can be easily picked between criminal and law-abiding citizen. Sometimes a law abiding citizen snaps, and the gun enables him to kill.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Not everyone can be easily picked between criminal and law-abiding citizen. Sometimes a law abiding citizen snaps, and the gun enables him to kill.

 

So we should treat all citizens guilty until proven innocent ? So when they die they should be allowed to do what they want because the fear of them using them in a bad way is alleviated.

[blotsfan 2,112]

I literally do not understand what you're trying to say in that second sentence.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I literally do not understand what you're trying to say in that second sentence.

 

What I am saying is that when do we stop assuming when people will not hurt someone. If we are going to assume everyone is a suspect then when can we assume they are safe. When they die. Is that the final step in gun control? It makes no sense to operate on the assumption that everyone is a potential killer instead of assuming that they are almost all innocent.

[BwareDWare94 723]

He's just being a pessimist. He's equating a law-abiding citizen to a gun owner. Most law-abiding citizens who have guns have them for one of two things: 1. Hunting. 2. Protection. Two very important things. It doesn't hurt law abiding citizens to put more restrictions on guns because most of these law abiding citizens are going to abide by these laws and go through what they must to get the firearm they need to hunt or else to "keep in the dresser drawer," we'll say.

 

Ngata, you are still equating the opposing argument to banning guns. Many of us, including myself, want guns still legal, but not so readily available. It makes no sense that you oppose that. Oppose a ban? Sure. I OPPOSE A BAN. Stop trying to read between the lines that aren't there.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

He's just being a pessimist. He's equating a law-abiding citizen to a gun owner. Most law-abiding citizens who have guns have them for one of two things: 1. Hunting. 2. Protection. Two very important things. It doesn't hurt law abiding citizens to put more restrictions on guns because most of these law abiding citizens are going to abide by these laws and go through what they must to get the firearm they need to hunt or else to "keep in the dresser drawer," we'll say.

 

Ngata, you are still equating the opposing argument to banning guns. Many of us, including myself, want guns still legal, but not so readily available. It makes no sense that you oppose that. Oppose a ban? Sure. I OPPOSE A BAN. Stop trying to read between the lines that aren't there.

 

No I am not. Making restrictions on guns just because they make your balls tickle and makes you feel good wont do anything. If you BAN assault rifles people are still going to get them. If you make it harder to get handguns you still do no good. It has been repeatedly brought up about the shooter in Aurora was going to fucking medical school and was a widely regarded student and yet look what he did. So how is your criteria going to help again ? It wont you just want to do it to get your rocks off so it can become this generations fight.

 

SO with the Aurora shooting cirteria goes out the window.

 

Permits and Fees will do what for guns? Training..yeah that is great. make people better killers. What is a gun class going to consist of ? The parts and how to use the safety. If you include any marksmanship you are just making them more proficient at killing if they want too.

 

There is no viable solution to prevent stuff like this so quit trying to point to it as if there is. Handguns would have killed those children just as quickly and efficiently. They have 16 or 17 round clips on some of them and they are way easier to conceal, quicker to reload, and you can carry much more ammunition without being noticed. Any ideas on how to stop that ? You said you dont like AK's for the magazine capacity what about hand guns. They can fire just as quickly as AR's too. I am trying to tell you guys this is an exercise in futility if you really think this is going to stop shootings from happening.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Well, not all murder is like the Aurora shooting. Look at this table.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0310.pdf

 

Notice how many of those murders were not planned out? They were just heat of the moment killings. I bet if some of them didn't have close access to a gun they wouldn't have killed anyone.

 

Also, stop with your "I'm older than you, ergo I'm smarter" crap. That adds nothing to the conversation and just makes you look out of touch.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Because every criminal who's ever used a gun would have "done what he/she had to do" to get a gun. Yeah, right. Not likely. Yes, people will still get guns. Nobody is denying that. You're beating a dead horse.

[Barracuda 629]

I'm not really sure where I stand on this. I'm an avid collector of knives and guns. I only have 2 guns as of now but I used to own more.

 

I don't mind if guns would be harder to obtain though banning any type of weapon (including automatics) outright I'm against. What we could realistically do to make them harder to obtain is a very short list.

 

Psych evaluations as proposed earlier is just not realistic. Who would we have to do these, would they be hired privately by the sellers or are employed by the government? If it's by the government then that's a whole new department and a lot of salaries/taxes. If it's private we have all types of different requirements and possibly inept evaluators. If it's government controlled is it federal requirements or does each state set the standards? In my opinion that option is just not cost effective at all. Plus how much different is an evaluation from a background check that we already have in place? This would also add much more money onto the gun which are already pretty pricey. You 600 dollar handgun after it's all said and done is probably costing you over a grand. Basically alienating many Americans from being able to purchase a gun if they wanted one.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Who's the last person that got killed by a TV?

 

I understand the comparison, but it's sort of hard to think it's relevant in light of recent events. Don't you?

 

You said there was no justifiable reason for owning an assault rifle. I'm saying you don't need a justifiable reason to own a lot of things.

 

The tool is not the thing at fault here, it's a tool. You, and every other gun control advocate, are focusing on the weapon, not the person, and it's just frankly frustrating. Why do you think you are going to fundamentally change the nature of a psychopath by not giving them legal access to a gun? You really think if this nutcase wasn't able to get a gun from his mother that it would have stopped him from killing those children?

 

It's funny to me, (in a darkly ironic way), that the libs have no problem letting "women's rights" trump a child's right to life, but act all high and mighty when they think gun control advocates are doing the same thing, (they aren't, but that is the much of the left's opinion). We kill millions of children in America every year, and half the country has no problem with it, nor do they have any desire to re-visit the issue just in case they might be wrong, and that yes, actually, children in the womb are still children, but they immediately politicize a tragedy where twenty children are murdered as an excuse to push tighter gun control on law-abiding citizens that would have done zilch to stop this tragedy. It's the epitome of hypocrisy.

 

For gods sake, the *day of* the tragedy, one of the NYT reporters asked Carney, the White House press secretary, if this showed there needed to be more gun control laws in place, and when Carney said that this was neither the time or the place, not today, (kudos to him), the reporter immediately turned around and wrote a column calling him a coward.

 

It sickens me, absolutely sickens me, that this psychopath murdered 26 people, including 20 children. It sickens me even more that the government is allowing Americans to murder children by the millions in the name of, pretty much, convenience and that no one seems to think that is a greater tragedy.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Also, stop with your "I'm older than you, ergo I'm smarter" crap. That adds nothing to the conversation and just makes you look out of touch.

 

What the fuck are you talking about ? You pulling shit out of your ass makes you look desperate. I never once referred to my age or your age or anybody's age.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Ngata_Chance

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Because every criminal who's ever used a gun would have "done what he/she had to do" to get a gun. Yeah, right. Not likely. Yes, people will still get guns. Nobody is denying that. You're beating a dead horse.

 

No you are being dense. If people are still going to get them, then these things will keep happening. So what is the point?

 

And what proof do you have it is not likely ?

[Thanatos 2,847]

No you are being dense. If people are still going to get them, then these things will keep happening. So what is the point?

 

And what proof do you have it is not likely ?

 

I agree with him, actually. If you take guns away, (not ban them, but out of that particular scenario where the crime was committed, I mean), some crimes that were committed in the heat of the moment may not ever happen. However, I would argue that it would simply create more crime via the increased trafficking of arms and the increased crime in neighborhoods were criminals know the citizens do not have access to firearms.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Who's the last person that got killed by a TV?

 

I understand the comparison, but it's sort of hard to think it's relevant in light of recent events. Don't you?

 

This argument is essentially: because some people use *insert tool here* for an evil purpose, all people everywhere should not be allowed to legally own *insert tool here.*

[blotsfan 2,112]

What the fuck are you talking about ? You pulling shit out of your ass makes you look desperate. I never once referred to my age or your age or anybody's age.

 

you just want to do it to get your rocks off so it can become this generations fight.

 

And as for comparing this to abortion: fuck you thanatos. They aren't people. You've said yourself that you would allow it in the case of rape. You wouldn't allow someone who has been raped to kill their rape child after s/he was born. If they were already people you'd consider it murder either way. You dont', therefore you know theres a difference. This is so far beyond abortion.

 

Edit: and im not gonna respond more about abortion stuff here. this isn't the place. if you want to make a different thread, feel free.

Edited December 16, 2012 by blotsfan

[Thanatos 2,847]

And as for comparing this to abortion: fuck you thanatos. They aren't people. You've said yourself that you would allow it in the case of rape. You wouldn't allow someone who has been raped to kill their rape child after s/he was born. If they were already people you'd consider it murder either way. You dont', therefore you know theres a difference. This is so far beyond abortion.

 

They aren't people. Really.

 

Sure as hell look like people to me.

 

I won't go into how you are twisting what I actually said, because as you said, that isn't this thread. This one's about gun control, and we already had one on abortion, I think. But it is the way I feel, which is why I made the comparison.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Thanatos19

[Omerta+ 1,206]

You do know generations encompass a number of years right, not singular years which you would need for a comparison. I said this as in referring to my generation as well. If I wanted to say his specifically I would say yours, right ? Make sense to me. Dont be so sensitive about it. Nobody was talking age until you spouted off at the lip about it.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I agree with him, actually. If you take guns away, (not ban them, but out of that particular scenario where the crime was committed, I mean), some crimes that were committed in the heat of the moment may not ever happen. However, I would argue that it would simply create more crime via the increased trafficking of arms and the increased crime in neighborhoods were criminals know the citizens do not have access to firearms.

 

Yes I mean if we had a time machine and could take it out of that individuals hands than of course it would, but we dont. And I thought most of this topic was geared towards the mass murders occurring. If that is the case that is not a heat of the moment thing.

 

Although I agree with it causing more crime, but try convincing Blots and Bware.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Yes I mean if we had a time machine and could take it out of that individuals hands than of course it would, but we dont. And I thought most of this topic was geared towards the mass murders occurring. If that is the case that is not a heat of the moment thing.

 

Although I agree with it causing more crime, but try convincing Blots and Bware.

 

I'm saying, given that some crimes occur in the heat of the moment, it would reduce the number of those crimes going forward. I just think it would create more crime in other areas, actually more overall crime. I'm not against putting stricter regulations on guns if I actually thought it would reduce crime and wouldn't be a dangerous precedent to set, (some people are using tool x for evil, so no one can use tool x anymore).

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I'm saying, given that some crimes occur in the heat of the moment, it would reduce the number of those crimes going forward. I just think it would create more crime in other areas, actually more overall crime. I'm not against putting stricter regulations on guns if I actually thought it would reduce crime and wouldn't be a dangerous precedent to set, (some people are using tool x for evil, so no one can use tool x anymore).

 

I am sure gun related crime would for heat of the moment killings, but I am not sure overall they would. There are too many alternatives to killing folks that someone who is a fit of rage will find a way to do it.

 

I understand what the graphs will say but what they cant account for is the absence of guns because right now they are available. If you restrict them then I am sure that knives would take over as the primary method for killing someone in a heat of the moment.

 

Also what is interesting about these heat of the moment things that nobody mentions is that I am sure 98 % of the people who commit these heat of the moment crimes are just fine most of the time. SO they could probably get a hold of guns when they feel good. Then they have them and THEN they snap. Jovan Belcher was brought up about his life could have been saved if they were harder to get. That is probably pure fiction. He has no previous outbursts like this so what would have been the red flag that made him ineligible for guns ? Probably none. So he would have had one anyway and would have snapped and still had access to his gun.

[Zack_of_Steel+ 3,014]

Alright, I've just caught up on the thread and I have a few initial thoughts:

 

-Cuda said it best so far. It's extremely hard to pin down where I stand seeing as the result of increased restrictions is completely speculative.

 

-From what I gather, I think we all agree here that restrictions would help cut down some crime, such as the "heat of the moment" crimes that blots linked.

 

-I am not for banning guns outright, but I am for greater restrictions.

 

-Assault rifles, like PD2010 said, are fun for a lot of enthusiasts. I completely disagree with Bware on this point. Is it excessive? Sure, but so are a lot of things that people do for enjoyment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe an AK47 or any other such "enthusiast level" gun has been used in a mass murder in the United States (evidenced by the fact that the largest massacre is the VT tragedy that totaled 33 deaths where the perpetrator used only two handguns).

 

I definitely feel that there needs to be extreme regulations on assault rifles, such as a federal psychological exam, but there is a valid reason for having them.

 

 

Where I stand on the main argument:

 

Making it harder for people to get guns would decrease murder in a lot of cases because pulling a trigger is relatively easy and it's the aftermath that one has to worry about psychologically. It's not as personal and arduous as stabbing someone, which is why I don't like the knife argument.

 

When Joe Schmo or Gangsta' McWannabe gets pissed and shoots someone, there's not a lot of thought there. Pop--someone's dead. Weak, gutless people will hide behind a gun and some will pull the trigger like it's nothing. Now put a knife in their hand and see how likely they are to walk up to someone and stick them and potentially watch the life drain out of their eyes, point-blank. Psychologically, that's enough to deter a lot of the shootings by moronic pussies. If they can't get a gun due to their background/some other restriction or can't be fucked going through the extra trouble to get one, they'll be left acting tough instead of killing someone.

 

I do believe, as Ngata and many others have stated, the illegal gun trade would be greatly increased. However, Joe Schmo isn't likely to know anyone connected enough to get them an illegal gun and he's even less likely to stroll into the wrong side of town and ask random ne'er-do-wells on the street if they know where to buy an illegal gun. Small time "gangsters" would likely have an easier time at this, but it would still deter a lot of them.

 

Now, this is not to say that crime everywhere would decrease. Thanatos and Ngata have both posited that the illegal gun market would be a crime booster in many areas, and with that I agree. The upshot is that it's hard to say how much and how that would compare to the decrease in Joe Shcmo/Gangsta' McWannabe crime.

 

If I had to take a shot at how I think it'd turn out, I'd say that while illegal gun sales would be a huge benefit to crimelords, murders overall would decrease at least somewhat. High-profile mobsters/gangesters who are out murdering people currently would still be murdering people either way while (as I've previously explained) the average idiot committing murder would be less likely with greater restrictions. So the end result is then "more powerful crimelords/less murder" in one hand and "less powerful crimelords/more murder" in the other. The sanctity of human life argument would lend credence to the former choice, though the tradeoff would not be ideal, obviously.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Justice Thug

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Alright, I've just caught up on the thread and I have a few initial thoughts:

 

-Cuda said it best so far. It's extremely hard to pin down where I stand seeing as the result of increased restrictions is completely speculative.

 

-From what I gather, I think we all agree here that restrictions would help cut down some crime, such as the "heat of the moment" crimes that blots linked.

 

-I am not for banning guns outright, but I am for greater restrictions.

 

-Assault rifles, like PD2010 said, are fun for a lot of enthusiasts. I completely disagree with Bware on this point. Is it excessive? Sure, but so are a lot of things that people do for enjoyment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe an AK47 or any other such "enthusiast level" gun has been used in a mass murder in the United States (evidenced by the fact that the largest massacre is the VT tragedy that totaled 33 deaths where the perpetrator used only two handguns).

 

I definitely feel that there needs to be extreme regulations on assault rifles, such as a federal psychological exam, but there is a valid reason for having them.

 

 

Where I stand on the main argument:

 

Making it harder for people to get guns would decrease murder in a lot of cases because pulling a trigger is relatively easy and it's the aftermath that one has to worry about psychologically. It's not as personal and arduous as stabbing someone, which is why I don't like the knife argument.

 

When Joe Schmo or Gangsta' McWannabe gets pissed and shoots someone, there's not a lot of thought there. Pop--someone's dead. Weak, gutless people will hide behind a gun and some will pull the trigger like it's nothing. Now put a knife in their hand and see how likely they are to walk up to someone and stick them and potentially watch the life drain out of their eyes, point-blank. Psychologically, that's enough to deter a lot of the shootings by moronic pussies. If they can't get a gun due to their background/some other restriction or can't be fucked going through the extra trouble to get one, they'll be left acting tough instead of killing someone.

 

I do believe, as Ngata and many others have stated, the illegal gun trade would be greatly increased. However, Joe Schmo isn't likely to know anyone connected enough to get them an illegal gun and he's even less likely to stroll into the wrong side of town and ask random ne'er-do-wells on the street if they know where to buy an illegal gun. Small time "gangsters" would likely have an easier time at this, but it would still deter a lot of them.

 

Now, this is not to say that crime everywhere would decrease. Thanatos and Ngata have both posited that the illegal gun market would be a crime booster in many areas, and with that I agree. The upshot is that it's hard to say how much and how that would compare to the decrease in Joe Shcmo/Gangsta' McWannabe crime.

 

If I had to take a shot at how I think it'd turn out, I'd say that while illegal gun sales would be a huge benefit to crimelords, murders overall would decrease at least somewhat. High-profile mobsters/gangesters who are out murdering people currently would still be murdering people either way while (as I've previously explained) the average idiot committing murder would be less likely with greater restrictions. So the end result is then "more powerful crimelords/less murder" in one hand and "less powerful crimelords/more murder" in the other. The sanctity of human life argument would lend credence to the former choice, though the tradeoff would not be ideal, obviously.

 

Justice Thug knows best.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Alright, I've just caught up on the thread and I have a few initial thoughts:

 

-Cuda said it best so far. It's extremely hard to pin down where I stand seeing as the result of increased restrictions is completely speculative.

 

-From what I gather, I think we all agree here that restrictions would help cut down some crime, such as the "heat of the moment" crimes that blots linked.

 

-I am not for banning guns outright, but I am for greater restrictions.

 

-Assault rifles, like PD2010 said, are fun for a lot of enthusiasts. I completely disagree with Bware on this point. Is it excessive? Sure, but so are a lot of things that people do for enjoyment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe an AK47 or any other such "enthusiast level" gun has been used in a mass murder in the United States (evidenced by the fact that the largest massacre is the VT tragedy that totaled 33 deaths where the perpetrator used only two handguns).

 

I definitely feel that there needs to be extreme regulations on assault rifles, such as a federal psychological exam, but there is a valid reason for having them.

 

 

Where I stand on the main argument:

 

Making it harder for people to get guns would decrease murder in a lot of cases because pulling a trigger is relatively easy and it's the aftermath that one has to worry about psychologically. It's not as personal and arduous as stabbing someone, which is why I don't like the knife argument.

 

When Joe Schmo or Gangsta' McWannabe gets pissed and shoots someone, there's not a lot of thought there. Pop--someone's dead. Weak, gutless people will hide behind a gun and some will pull the trigger like it's nothing. Now put a knife in their hand and see how likely they are to walk up to someone and stick them and potentially watch the life drain out of their eyes, point-blank. Psychologically, that's enough to deter a lot of the shootings by moronic pussies. If they can't get a gun due to their background/some other restriction or can't be fucked going through the extra trouble to get one, they'll be left acting tough instead of killing someone.

 

I do believe, as Ngata and many others have stated, the illegal gun trade would be greatly increased. However, Joe Schmo isn't likely to know anyone connected enough to get them an illegal gun and he's even less likely to stroll into the wrong side of town and ask random ne'er-do-wells on the street if they know where to buy an illegal gun. Small time "gangsters" would likely have an easier time at this, but it would still deter a lot of them.

 

Now, this is not to say that crime everywhere would decrease. Thanatos and Ngata have both posited that the illegal gun market would be a crime booster in many areas, and with that I agree. The upshot is that it's hard to say how much and how that would compare to the decrease in Joe Shcmo/Gangsta' McWannabe crime.

 

If I had to take a shot at how I think it'd turn out, I'd say that while illegal gun sales would be a huge benefit to crimelords, murders overall would decrease at least somewhat. High-profile mobsters/gangesters who are out murdering people currently would still be murdering people either way while (as I've previously explained) the average idiot committing murder would be less likely with greater restrictions. So the end result is then "more powerful crimelords/less murder" in one hand and "less powerful crimelords/more murder" in the other. The sanctity of human life argument would lend credence to the former choice, though the tradeoff would not be ideal, obviously.

 

Ok, I can get on board with most of that. Since you havent spit out the same rhetoric I want some honest answers that we have come to expect from Zack.

 

With handguns what restrictions could you make that would still allow a balance ? You did a nice job pointing out what I was saying. When it comes to handguns they are probably the most effective killing weapon for mass casualties in a confined space. They are concealed well as well as their ammunition, They are easy to maneuver in confined spaces, their calibers are almost larger and far more lethal than those of assault rifles, quicker with follow up shots, have far more lethal and variety of types of bullets, far easier to train on as far as targets, you can get a higher volume of fire in smaller areas in skilled hands, quicker follow up shots and so on. SO in effect when it comes to shooting in a confined space they are almost the perfect weapon.

 

The reason I ask this is because when it comes to self defense they are the preferred weapon. So how would you restrict something like this ? I am not opposed to reasonable restrictions on how to get them. Where I get hung up is that just because there are restrictions in place does not mean they are effective or that they are dong what they are intended to do. I have tried to think of something that you could conceivably do to put restrictions in place and I have tried discussing it with some other people who are open-minded gun enthusiasts.

 

The only thing we have came up with is that either we use taxpayer spending to finance psychiatric evaluation because it would be covered under The Affordable Healthcare act. Or you make them at the expense of the buyer which would make them cost exclusive to wealthier owners as good, reliable handguns are usually expensive in their own right without the cost of a psychiatric evaluation or the ammunition itself. But lets assume that they can come up with a way to do this there are some more issues here.

 

When it comes to having a licence this is something I am fine with and already have several and all my weapons are registered. However being in the military made this a much more streamlined process because of the training I have received. That said when I came into the Army they said it took over 100,000 dollars to train me and that was just getting me at out of basic training. Now I am sure that is an inflated figure because well it is the government and they had to also figure in housing, food, gas and training time. That said most courses are a few thousand and all they really do is teach you how to fire the weapon accurately. They will not give you a moral compass that tells you not to kill anybody. There is no sort of training in my mind that can equip people with the the god given sense not to do this. So what good is training and certificates if they do nothing but teach people how to shoot more accurately ?

 

 

You have already said that people should be able to own whatever they want which is something I am sure you ascertained I am in agreement with. So there is no need to talk about the exclusivity of what types of people can own guns.

 

The only thing I disagree with for lack of a better term is that people would not know how to get them by wandering on the wrong side of the tracks. I thought about that as well and the only thing that I can liken it too is lets say pot. Pot has been something that has kinda sorta been legal but not really. It has been illegal but rarely enforced because imo it is not a small evil it really isn't an evil at all. Now I dont burn herb but I have numerous friends that do and while we are riding around and contemplating after parties they stop by a dealers house to get some green. I used to wait out in the car so no one would get nervy and people would stay frosty, but after my friends got to know me they would vouch for me so to speak. And now I am friends with a few people who deal, not on a Pablo Escobar level but know people who can move a decent amount so that they can get enough to sell. I think this is how it would be with restricted or illegal firearms for some. I mean at first yeah it would cut out some of them but I truly believe that just through the whole 7 degrees thing they are bound to know someone who has them and are not illegal or restricted to and they in turn know someone who can get larger varieties of armaments. So I think in time people who live in gated communities would find a way to get them from other "less reputable" people, especially when they find the money it would bring.

 

As to the knife thing. You are correct on all accounts that it is a much more personal weapon to kill people with. In the hands of someone with skills they are even more dangerous than guns imo. Not not in terms of how lethal they are by themselves and the mortality rate inflicted by single gunshot wounds versus single stab wounds. However in the right hands they are just as deadly and they are completely silent. Now with that being said it is not an ideal weapon for mass murder except for in dimly lit areas where people are in large quantities such as movie theaters (not trying to bring light to a tradgedy), concerts, bars, and so on. So in that aspect I would certainly agree that they would be less likely to get large amounts of fatalities. However in heat of the moment domestic crimes they are also ideal. Not saying from and ease perspective but there would be no reports of the gun to be heard by neighbors giving you more time for disposal and thinking for allibi's and destruction of evidence. Even if they are more personal in a heat of the moment thing you will deter some of it but a lot of it is going to happen and it will be far more gruesome. So I am not saying knives are what you would want to use but given a lack of options they are what would be available and use in a lot of cases.

[BwareDWare94 723]

If I may say one thing about your knife argument, Ngata, let it be that it seems fairly clear that with these mass murders, that the perpetrator is not exactly a trained killer. I find it unlikely that Adam Lanza could have walked into that school with a knife and even killed ten people. That's still ten people, still a tragedy, but it's 17 less than the final count. I don't find knives to be as potentially prolific, in these sorts of situations.

 

Can you at last concede that pulling a trigger is significantly easier than using just about any other weapon?

 

One thing I must point out, though, is that I feel like bomb threats would escalate if firearms become much harder to attain. That is one potential catch-22 I see.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

If I may say one thing about your knife argument, Ngata, let it be that it seems fairly clear that with these mass murders, that the perpetrator is not exactly a trained killer. I find it unlikely that Adam Lanza could have walked into that school with a knife and even killed ten people. That's still ten people, still a tragedy, but it's 17 less than the final count. I don't find knives to be as potentially prolific, in these sorts of situations.

 

Can you at last concede that pulling a trigger is significantly easier than using just about any other weapon?

 

One thing I must point out, though, is that I feel like bomb threats would escalate if firearms become much harder to attain. That is one potential catch-22 I see.

 

No they were not trained killers that is why I said skilled hands. And I never said that pulling a trigger wasnt easier. It is just to point out that people will find a way to kill each other regardless. The body count may decrease for a while but it will again go up and probably get higher than what it is.