Is banning guns to save lives even logical?

[kyzr]

When mass shootings occur not just in the United States but worldwide calls to ban guns come to the fore as they tend to do when innocent people die in the carnage. The theory is that taking away the instrument of the killing will stop the cause of death and make society a safer place. This makes sense on a superficial level but the logic is flawed because it does not address the dynamics that lead shooters to kill indiscriminately often losing their own lives in the process. When these events take place there is tremendous pressure to “do something” to prevent them. The killings become politicized and the blame game rages on.

In 2018 there were 323 mass shootings in the US with 1,661 being shot. 327 people died in those shootings so the logic of taking away guns suggests that lives could be saved. If the mission of taking away articles from the public is to save lives then that logic should be applied across the board to save lives.

635,260 people died from heart disease in the US caused from the chronic use of tobacco and alcohol. So to save lives the logic of taking away the cause of death needs to be applied. Should we forget the lessons of Prohibition and ban the apparatus of death? 600,000 is a number that dwarfs 327 so obviously tobacco and alcohol are 1,800 times more dangerous than guns used in mass shootings.

Should we start removing beer and cigarettes from store shelves and passing laws to arrest those who peddle them if they do not comply? Let’s not forget that another 600,000 died from cancer much of which can be traced to the use of booze and butts so the numbers are even more ominous. Are we trying to save lives or not?

The flawed logic of blaming the current president for mass shootings pales in comparison to that same logic of blaming the previous president that smoked and shared a beer with police. Using this logic the president that sat in office for eight years set a fatal example that led to millions of preventable deaths while today’s president doesn’t even drink or smoke.

Obviously calls for gun control are dangerously illogical so long as multitudes perish from self-administered poison some of which (alcohol) is widely advertised on television. Should we get our priorities in order?

You forgot to mention the horrendous number of people who are injured and die in automobile accidents every year. Banning automobiles would not only eliminate them as a cause of carnage, it would be approved of by the "greenies", thereby saving the planet as well as many lives directly related to automobiles.

And another rightist follows suit with his own ridiculous false comparison fallacy.

Clearly lack of critical thinking skills is a prerequisite for being conservative.

Areas with the most daily gun deaths are in areas where guns ARE BANNED

Urban areas where guns are banned...

Are they not considered Americans to you?

Your post makes no sense when my post said that guns are "banned in URBAN areas" where the gun violence is the worst.
In the rural and suburban areas where guns are permitted gun violence is rare.

 

[candycorn]

When mass shootings occur not just in the United States but worldwide calls to ban guns come to the fore as they tend to do when innocent people die in the carnage. The theory is that taking away the instrument of the killing will stop the cause of death and make society a safer place. This makes sense on a superficial level but the logic is flawed because it does not address the dynamics that lead shooters to kill indiscriminately often losing their own lives in the process. When these events take place there is tremendous pressure to “do something” to prevent them. The killings become politicized and the blame game rages on.

In 2018 there were 323 mass shootings in the US with 1,661 being shot. 327 people died in those shootings so the logic of taking away guns suggests that lives could be saved. If the mission of taking away articles from the public is to save lives then that logic should be applied across the board to save lives.

635,260 people died from heart disease in the US caused from the chronic use of tobacco and alcohol. So to save lives the logic of taking away the cause of death needs to be applied. Should we forget the lessons of Prohibition and ban the apparatus of death? 600,000 is a number that dwarfs 327 so obviously tobacco and alcohol are 1,800 times more dangerous than guns used in mass shootings.

Should we start removing beer and cigarettes from store shelves and passing laws to arrest those who peddle them if they do not comply? Let’s not forget that another 600,000 died from cancer much of which can be traced to the use of booze and butts so the numbers are even more ominous. Are we trying to save lives or not?

The flawed logic of blaming the current president for mass shootings pales in comparison to that same logic of blaming the previous president that smoked and shared a beer with police. Using this logic the president that sat in office for eight years set a fatal example that led to millions of preventable deaths while today’s president doesn’t even drink or smoke.

Obviously calls for gun control are dangerously illogical so long as multitudes perish from self-administered poison some of which (alcohol) is widely advertised on television. Should we get our priorities in order?

Works in other developed nations.
Unless you think Americans are just more homicidal than other peoples…it should work here.
Clearly whatever we are trying isn’t working….so logic (you should look up the word) would dictate you should try something else.

 

[Jitss617]

You forgot to mention the horrendous number of people who are injured and die in automobile accidents every year. Banning automobiles would not only eliminate them as a cause of carnage, it would be approved of by the "greenies", thereby saving the planet as well as many lives directly related to automobiles.

And another rightist follows suit with his own ridiculous false comparison fallacy.

Clearly lack of critical thinking skills is a prerequisite for being conservative.

Areas with the most daily gun deaths are in areas where guns ARE BANNED

Urban areas where guns are banned...

Are they not considered Americans to you?

Your post makes no sense when my post said that guns are "banned in URBAN areas" where the gun violence is the worst. In the rural and suburban areas where guns are permitted gun violence is rare.

You know blacks live in urban areas, you know democrats have been disarming them for years, you know the bill of right, and you know the civil rights act was passed..

Wanna tell me again why you don’t want blacks to own guns? Because of population lol hahah

 

[kyzr]

I can think of a few things that might reduce the number of mass shootings. The shooters all seem to be young, white, males, using AR-15s. So here are a few ideas:
1. You need to not only pass a background check, but be at least 25 or 30 to buy an AR
2. If young men want to shoot, join the military

If you examine history, you find that young, white, males are not exceptionally violent, but instead overly sensitive.
So they are the canary in the coal mine. If they are becoming more violent, then social conditions, financial pressures, employment, school conditioning, competition, impersonalization, over crowding, food chain contamination, over medication, or something else extremely serious is wrong and needs to be studied and fixed.

It is wrong to instead simply deny that age group of the opportunity to be armed and maintain the democratic republic.
That age group is where idealism comes from, and prevents slow decadence and decay of any democratic republic into dictatorship. Disarming that age group ensures we eventually become a dictatorship.

It is paid mercenaries that always are the main threat in a democratic republic. We hire police and the military to protect us from criminals, both domestic and foreign, but at the same time, it is both the police and military who historically have always destroyed democratic republics, because they do what the person who signs their paycheck tell them, not what is right.

I can add a few more potential causes to your rationale for why young white males are becoming more violent:
1. Violent video games, desensitizes them to killing
2. Loss of respect for authority, look at NYC throwing water on cops, BLM, antifa, etc.
3. No moral compass, religion is not as important as it used to be
4. The changing of the US from patriotic citizens only to open borders and disapproval of nationalism
There are probably more subtle ones, but those are the obvious ones that stick out.

 

[debbiedowner]

Take away democrats and the problem is solved.

So in a kids mind and I do refer to a 21 yr old as kid when they see over and over take away dems or repubs what you're calling for is killing dems?

In your twisted mind, anything goes. But in reality i'd like to see internment camps and re-education of the insane democrats and then once completed, use them for jobs they can handle well, like grammar checkers and proofreaders, and mailroom clerks.

Changing your tune now I see and you have called for the extinction of anyone on the left. I guess you think the authorities may be combing the message boards today as reported on the news. You'll be back to your hateful self soon.

 

[kyzr]

And another rightist follows suit with his own ridiculous false comparison fallacy.

Clearly lack of critical thinking skills is a prerequisite for being conservative.

Areas with the most daily gun deaths are in areas where guns ARE BANNED

Urban areas where guns are banned...

Are they not considered Americans to you?

Your post makes no sense when my post said that guns are "banned in URBAN areas" where the gun violence is the worst. In the rural and suburban areas where guns are permitted gun violence is rare.

You know blacks live in urban areas, you know democrats have been disarming them for years, you know the bill of right, and you know the civil rights act was passed..
Wanna tell me again why you don’t want blacks to own guns? Because of population lol hahah

Whites live in urban areas too. Chicago where the gun violence is worst has a 33% black and 67% white population. Not saying which neighborhoods have the worst violence. Point being that guns are BANNED in Chicago, by democrats. If you read the thread from the top you'll see that even though democrats have been "disarming them" for years, gun control hasn't worked. So to answer your last question, Democrats don't want blacks to own guns, go to any city run by democrats.

 

[debbiedowner]

Take away democrats and the problem is solved.

So in a kids mind and I do refer to a 21 yr old as kid when they see over and over take away dems or repubs what you're calling for is killing dems?

I think he is saying that historically there is no problem when there are no gun control laws.
The more gun control laws we create, the worse everything obviously gets.
So I don't think he is saying to harm anyone, but to clear up bad ideas and thoughts that are the actual source of the problem.
He is characterizing it as "dems" which I clearly disagree with since I am a "dem", but any notion that any legislation can make things better clearly is false. In a democratic republic, you MUST empower individuals as much as possible, to the point of passing laws mandating they be armed if necessary. The democratic republic can not work otherwise. Trying to disarm the public and instead rely on mercenary police and military, is political suicide. It means the end of the democratic republic.

The reality is that it is likely the war on drugs that is responsible for most of the gun violence.
It has caused a flood of additional gun ownership, while greatly degrading the credibility of government.
The other thing that likely is making things much worse is that our government is getting out of control and murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people, like in Iraq. That can not help but harm our society.

No he wasn't he was calling for extinction of leftists. Just another agitator.

 

[Jitss617]

Areas with the most daily gun deaths are in areas where guns ARE BANNED

Urban areas where guns are banned...

Are they not considered Americans to you?

Your post makes no sense when my post said that guns are "banned in URBAN areas" where the gun violence is the worst. In the rural and suburban areas where guns are permitted gun violence is rare.

You know blacks live in urban areas, you know democrats have been disarming them for years, you know the bill of right, and you know the civil rights act was passed..
Wanna tell me again why you don’t want blacks to own guns? Because of population lol hahah

Whites live in urban areas too. Chicago where the gun violence is worst has a 33% black and 67% white population. Not saying which neighborhoods have the worst violence. Point being that guns are BANNED in Chicago, by democrats. If you read the thread from the top you'll see that even though democrats have been "disarming them" for years, gun control hasn't worked. So to answer your last question, Democrats don't want blacks to own guns, go to any city run by democrats.

Whites are allowed to own guns they have been grandfathered in, they also hold permits in other districts, blacks have been regulated out

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When mass shootings occur not just in the United States but worldwide calls to ban guns come to the fore as they tend to do when innocent people die in the carnage. The theory is that taking away the instrument of the killing will stop the cause of death and make society a safer place. This makes sense on a superficial level but the logic is flawed because it does not address the dynamics that lead shooters to kill indiscriminately often losing their own lives in the process. When these events take place there is tremendous pressure to “do something” to prevent them. The killings become politicized and the blame game rages on.

In 2018 there were 323 mass shootings in the US with 1,661 being shot. 327 people died in those shootings so the logic of taking away guns suggests that lives could be saved. If the mission of taking away articles from the public is to save lives then that logic should be applied across the board to save lives.

635,260 people died from heart disease in the US caused from the chronic use of tobacco and alcohol. So to save lives the logic of taking away the cause of death needs to be applied. Should we forget the lessons of Prohibition and ban the apparatus of death? 600,000 is a number that dwarfs 327 so obviously tobacco and alcohol are 1,800 times more dangerous than guns used in mass shootings.

Should we start removing beer and cigarettes from store shelves and passing laws to arrest those who peddle them if they do not comply? Let’s not forget that another 600,000 died from cancer much of which can be traced to the use of booze and butts so the numbers are even more ominous. Are we trying to save lives or not?

The flawed logic of blaming the current president for mass shootings pales in comparison to that same logic of blaming the previous president that smoked and shared a beer with police. Using this logic the president that sat in office for eight years set a fatal example that led to millions of preventable deaths while today’s president doesn’t even drink or smoke.

Obviously calls for gun control are dangerously illogical so long as multitudes perish from self-administered poison some of which (alcohol) is widely advertised on television. Should we get our priorities in order?

What’s illogical is this thread’s premise – it fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The thread premise is also a lie: no one advocate for ‘banning’ guns.

That is not true.
There obviously are various levels of banning, such as some want to ban all private guns, while others want to just ban all private pistol or large capacity rifles.
But there not only are over 10,000 gun laws already attempting to illegally restrict firearms, many politicians clearly have said they essentially want to ban all private firearms.

And clearly that is evil and foolish if one wants a democratic republic, because all democratic republics exist only by force of the public having arms. This country was created by armed rebellion against oppression, has fought many wars against oppressive threats, and will likely have to fight many more oppressive threats in the future. So disarming the general public would be suicide of the democratic republic.

Yes it is true.

Comparing ‘banning’ guns to ‘banning’ beer and cigarettes is a false comparison; an ‘argument’ devoid of logic and merit.

What isn’t true is the notion that any politician wants to ‘ban’ all private firearms; to do so would be both un-Constitutional and impossible to implement.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I can think of a few things that might reduce the number of mass shootings. The shooters all seem to be young, white, males, using AR-15s. So here are a few ideas:
1. You need to not only pass a background check, but be at least 25 or 30 to buy an AR
2. If young men want to shoot, join the military

The Walmart shooter in El Paso did not use an AR.

 

[kyzr]

I can think of a few things that might reduce the number of mass shootings. The shooters all seem to be young, white, males, using AR-15s. So here are a few ideas:
1. You need to not only pass a background check, but be at least 25 or 30 to buy an AR
2. If young men want to shoot, join the military

The Walmart shooter in El Paso did not use an AR.

He used an AK-47, which is an assault rifle, just of Russian design.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I can think of a few things that might reduce the number of mass shootings. The shooters all seem to be young, white, males, using AR-15s. So here are a few ideas:
1. You need to not only pass a background check, but be at least 25 or 30 to buy an AR
2. If young men want to shoot, join the military

The Walmart shooter in El Paso did not use an AR.

He used an AK-47, which is an assault rifle, just of Russian design.

Neither the AR-15 or AK-47 are assault rifles. Stop buying into the media changing definitions to suit their agenda. They are both semi-automatic rifles.

 

[kyzr]

I can think of a few things that might reduce the number of mass shootings. The shooters all seem to be young, white, males, using AR-15s. So here are a few ideas:
1. You need to not only pass a background check, but be at least 25 or 30 to buy an AR
2. If young men want to shoot, join the military

The Walmart shooter in El Paso did not use an AR.

He used an AK-47, which is an assault rifle, just of Russian design.

Neither the AR-15 or AK-47 are assault rifles. Stop buying into the media changing definitions to suit their agenda. They are both semi-automatic rifles.

Not to belabor the point, but an assault rifle is: Definition of ASSAULT RIFLE
Definition of assault rifle
: any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I can think of a few things that might reduce the number of mass shootings. The shooters all seem to be young, white, males, using AR-15s. So here are a few ideas:
1. You need to not only pass a background check, but be at least 25 or 30 to buy an AR
2. If young men want to shoot, join the military

The Walmart shooter in El Paso did not use an AR.

He used an AK-47, which is an assault rifle, just of Russian design.

Neither the AR-15 or AK-47 are assault rifles. Stop buying into the media changing definitions to suit their agenda. They are both semi-automatic rifles.

Not to belabor the point, but an assault rifle is: Definition of ASSAULT RIFLE
Definition of assault rifle
: any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire

The AK-47 and AR-15s used in these shootings are not capable of automatic fire, which makes them not assault rifles. I think you will find that secondary definition to have been added recently because it is grossly incorrect. The first definition is correct.

If both definitions are correct, why is there a need for the first definition, since it eliminates the second?

 

[gallantwarrior]

How have blacks been "regulated out"? What does that mean?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The thread premise is also a lie: no one advocate for ‘banning’ guns.

You expect us to believe that, after you and your ilk would not even admit that the 2nd Amendment protects the individual right?

Sorry. You're full of shit. We don't believe you. We have no good reason to trust a single word you say.

As far as we are concerned, you want to ban and confiscate. We will assume so until you prove otherwise. Burden's on you.

.

 

[Marion Morrison]

When mass shootings occur not just in the United States but worldwide calls to ban guns come to the fore as they tend to do when innocent people die in the carnage. The theory is that taking away the instrument of the killing will stop the cause of death and make society a safer place. This makes sense on a superficial level but the logic is flawed because it does not address the dynamics that lead shooters to kill indiscriminately often losing their own lives in the process. When these events take place there is tremendous pressure to “do something” to prevent them. The killings become politicized and the blame game rages on.

In 2018 there were 323 mass shootings in the US with 1,661 being shot. 327 people died in those shootings so the logic of taking away guns suggests that lives could be saved. If the mission of taking away articles from the public is to save lives then that logic should be applied across the board to save lives.

635,260 people died from heart disease in the US caused from the chronic use of tobacco and alcohol. So to save lives the logic of taking away the cause of death needs to be applied. Should we forget the lessons of Prohibition and ban the apparatus of death? 600,000 is a number that dwarfs 327 so obviously tobacco and alcohol are 1,800 times more dangerous than guns used in mass shootings.

Should we start removing beer and cigarettes from store shelves and passing laws to arrest those who peddle them if they do not comply? Let’s not forget that another 600,000 died from cancer much of which can be traced to the use of booze and butts so the numbers are even more ominous. Are we trying to save lives or not?

The flawed logic of blaming the current president for mass shootings pales in comparison to that same logic of blaming the previous president that smoked and shared a beer with police. Using this logic the president that sat in office for eight years set a fatal example that led to millions of preventable deaths while today’s president doesn’t even drink or smoke.

Obviously calls for gun control are dangerously illogical so long as multitudes perish from self-administered poison some of which (alcohol) is widely advertised on television. Should we get our priorities in order?

No. Leftists created these monsters, so we gotta give up our things? Uhhmm, no.
Now we have to stop the all-knowing leftists from creating these monsters, but they know better!

 

[lennypartiv]

It's a fallacy to think banning guns would save lives. Another bold faced left wing lie.

 

[progressive hunter]

I can think of a few things that might reduce the number of mass shootings. The shooters all seem to be young, white, males, using AR-15s. So here are a few ideas:
1. You need to not only pass a background check, but be at least 25 or 30 to buy an AR
2. If young men want to shoot, join the military

The Walmart shooter in El Paso did not use an AR.

He used an AK-47, which is an assault rifle, just of Russian design.

Neither the AR-15 or AK-47 are assault rifles. Stop buying into the media changing definitions to suit their agenda. They are both semi-automatic rifles.

Not to belabor the point, but an assault rifle is: Definition of ASSAULT RIFLE
Definition of assault rifle
: any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire

The AK-47 and AR-15s used in these shootings are not capable of automatic fire, which makes them not assault rifles. I think you will find that secondary definition to have been added recently because it is grossly incorrect. The first definition is correct.

If both definitions are correct, why is there a need for the first definition, since it eliminates the second?

doesnt really matter since the 2nd amendment was specifically for weapons of war,,

 

[Daryl Hunt]

When mass shootings occur not just in the United States but worldwide calls to ban guns come to the fore as they tend to do when innocent people die in the carnage. The theory is that taking away the instrument of the killing will stop the cause of death and make society a safer place. This makes sense on a superficial level but the logic is flawed because it does not address the dynamics that lead shooters to kill indiscriminately often losing their own lives in the process. When these events take place there is tremendous pressure to “do something” to prevent them. The killings become politicized and the blame game rages on.

In 2018 there were 323 mass shootings in the US with 1,661 being shot. 327 people died in those shootings so the logic of taking away guns suggests that lives could be saved. If the mission of taking away articles from the public is to save lives then that logic should be applied across the board to save lives.

635,260 people died from heart disease in the US caused from the chronic use of tobacco and alcohol. So to save lives the logic of taking away the cause of death needs to be applied. Should we forget the lessons of Prohibition and ban the apparatus of death? 600,000 is a number that dwarfs 327 so obviously tobacco and alcohol are 1,800 times more dangerous than guns used in mass shootings.

Should we start removing beer and cigarettes from store shelves and passing laws to arrest those who peddle them if they do not comply? Let’s not forget that another 600,000 died from cancer much of which can be traced to the use of booze and butts so the numbers are even more ominous. Are we trying to save lives or not?

The flawed logic of blaming the current president for mass shootings pales in comparison to that same logic of blaming the previous president that smoked and shared a beer with police. Using this logic the president that sat in office for eight years set a fatal example that led to millions of preventable deaths while today’s president doesn’t even drink or smoke.

Obviously calls for gun control are dangerously illogical so long as multitudes perish from self-administered poison some of which (alcohol) is widely advertised on television. Should we get our priorities in order?

What’s illogical is this thread’s premise – it fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The thread premise is also a lie: no one advocate for ‘banning’ guns.

Since the gun nutters want to invoke the will of God in the 2nd amendment, lt's take it one step further. Those that go off on this and jeapordize the lives of thousands each year must be influenced by Satan. Satan is a slippery liar who oftentimes will masquerade as an Angel of good. My God and Jesus is that of love. So get thee back, Satan and your minions lest we have God Smite thee.