CDZ Which is worse, dying in a mass shooting, or dying in a mass truck running over?

[2aguy]

In Stockholm, Sweden.....a country Trump mentioned has a tiny problem with their immigrant community.......a suspected muslim terrorists used a truck to kill 4 and injure 15....

And let us not forget the truck attack in Nice, France....

2016 Nice attack - Wikipedia

On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19 tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people[2] and injuring 434.[4][5][6][7][8]

And at the Pulse Night Club gun free zone...

Pulse (nightclub) - Wikipedia

On June 12, 2016, the club gained international attention as it was the scene of the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since the events of September 11, 2001. Forty-nine people were killed and 53 were injured. There are plans to convert the premises into a memorial dedicated to the victims.

Comparing worst attacks by each method...

So...Truck....89 dead, 434 injured...

Gun: 49 dead, 53 injured in gun free zone.

So....which is worse....getting killed by a gun in a mass shooting, or getting run over by a truck in a mass, running over?

 

[Toronado3800]

In Stockholm, Sweden.....a country Trump mentioned has a tiny problem with their immigrant community.......a suspected muslim terrorists used a truck to kill 4 and injure 15....

And let us not forget the truck attack in Nice, France....

2016 Nice attack - Wikipedia

On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19 tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people[2] and injuring 434.[4][5][6][7][8]

And at the Pulse Night Club gun free zone...

Pulse (nightclub) - Wikipedia

On June 12, 2016, the club gained international attention as it was the scene of the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since the events of September 11, 2001. Forty-nine people were killed and 53 were injured. There are plans to convert the premises into a memorial dedicated to the victims.

Comparing worst attacks by each method...

So...Truck....89 dead, 434 injured...

Gun: 49 dead, 53 injured in gun free zone.

So....which is worse....getting killed by a gun in a mass shooting, or getting run over by a truck in a mass, running over?

Dead is dead if you are a victim.

Don't be shy if you are you asking if getting a truck or gun needs to be more closely regulated. The comparison is valid.

Deferring to our criminal element I will just go to assume guns are the weapon of choice. Although vehicles can be quite deadly as well, no one wants to dent their car or something. Would you disagree guns are the weapon of choice for murderers in America?

 

[westwall]

In Stockholm, Sweden.....a country Trump mentioned has a tiny problem with their immigrant community.......a suspected muslim terrorists used a truck to kill 4 and injure 15....

And let us not forget the truck attack in Nice, France....

2016 Nice attack - Wikipedia

On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19 tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people[2] and injuring 434.[4][5][6][7][8]

And at the Pulse Night Club gun free zone...

Pulse (nightclub) - Wikipedia

On June 12, 2016, the club gained international attention as it was the scene of the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since the events of September 11, 2001. Forty-nine people were killed and 53 were injured. There are plans to convert the premises into a memorial dedicated to the victims.

Comparing worst attacks by each method...

So...Truck....89 dead, 434 injured...

Gun: 49 dead, 53 injured in gun free zone.

So....which is worse....getting killed by a gun in a mass shooting, or getting run over by a truck in a mass, running over?

Dead is dead if you are a victim.

Don't be shy if you are you asking if getting a truck or gun needs to be more closely regulated. The comparison is valid.

Deferring to our criminal element I will just go to assume guns are the weapon of choice. Although vehicles can be quite deadly as well, no one wants to dent their car or something. Would you disagree guns are the weapon of choice for murderers in America?

Not at all. Would you agree that the violence is primarily black on black, gang related murders? Now, would you care to explain to the class how a law, any law is going to affect people who commit those types of crimes?

 

[MarathonMike]

If it isn't a truck or a gun, it will be poisoning a water supply or arson or crashing a plane or a hundred other methods that radical nut job Muslims will use. The fundamental problem is a group of brainwashed people who have the 'will to kill', not their tool of choice.

 

[Meane]

New technology may soon prevent the drive overs. It won't change the gun so it won't fire.

Which one is worse depends on a sentiment and in how much it hurts. I would be more insulted if someone drove over my legs than if they shot at me. With a truck after my arse I'd get the feeling I can get away if I'm smart. I'd probably end up blaming myself the same way I blame myself for not being able to run in dreams.

 

[2aguy]

In Stockholm, Sweden.....a country Trump mentioned has a tiny problem with their immigrant community.......a suspected muslim terrorists used a truck to kill 4 and injure 15....

And let us not forget the truck attack in Nice, France....

2016 Nice attack - Wikipedia

On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19 tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people[2] and injuring 434.[4][5][6][7][8]

And at the Pulse Night Club gun free zone...

Pulse (nightclub) - Wikipedia

On June 12, 2016, the club gained international attention as it was the scene of the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since the events of September 11, 2001. Forty-nine people were killed and 53 were injured. There are plans to convert the premises into a memorial dedicated to the victims.

Comparing worst attacks by each method...

So...Truck....89 dead, 434 injured...

Gun: 49 dead, 53 injured in gun free zone.

So....which is worse....getting killed by a gun in a mass shooting, or getting run over by a truck in a mass, running over?

Dead is dead if you are a victim.

Don't be shy if you are you asking if getting a truck or gun needs to be more closely regulated. The comparison is valid.

Deferring to our criminal element I will just go to assume guns are the weapon of choice. Although vehicles can be quite deadly as well, no one wants to dent their car or something. Would you disagree guns are the weapon of choice for murderers in America?

Sure.....but it is also the tool of choice for law abiding people to fight off murderers...wouldn't you agree with that?

 

[Toronado3800]

In Stockholm, Sweden.....a country Trump mentioned has a tiny problem with their immigrant community.......a suspected muslim terrorists used a truck to kill 4 and injure 15....

And let us not forget the truck attack in Nice, France....

2016 Nice attack - Wikipedia

On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19 tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people[2] and injuring 434.[4][5][6][7][8]

And at the Pulse Night Club gun free zone...

Pulse (nightclub) - Wikipedia

On June 12, 2016, the club gained international attention as it was the scene of the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since the events of September 11, 2001. Forty-nine people were killed and 53 were injured. There are plans to convert the premises into a memorial dedicated to the victims.

Comparing worst attacks by each method...

So...Truck....89 dead, 434 injured...

Gun: 49 dead, 53 injured in gun free zone.

So....which is worse....getting killed by a gun in a mass shooting, or getting run over by a truck in a mass, running over?

Dead is dead if you are a victim.

Don't be shy if you are you asking if getting a truck or gun needs to be more closely regulated. The comparison is valid.

Deferring to our criminal element I will just go to assume guns are the weapon of choice. Although vehicles can be quite deadly as well, no one wants to dent their car or something. Would you disagree guns are the weapon of choice for murderers in America?

Sure.....but it is also the tool of choice for law abiding people to fight off murderers...wouldn't you agree with that?

Yup I would agree.

Leaves us with the sloppiest written Ammendment and how the Founding Fathers treated guns to go by.

I'm not particularly anti gun. I own one and have even fired an AK (with a terribly unsighted scope!).

Honestly I am not sure if we would be safer with more or fewer guns.

 

[2aguy]

In Stockholm, Sweden.....a country Trump mentioned has a tiny problem with their immigrant community.......a suspected muslim terrorists used a truck to kill 4 and injure 15....

And let us not forget the truck attack in Nice, France....

2016 Nice attack - Wikipedia

On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19 tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people[2] and injuring 434.[4][5][6][7][8]

And at the Pulse Night Club gun free zone...

Pulse (nightclub) - Wikipedia

On June 12, 2016, the club gained international attention as it was the scene of the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since the events of September 11, 2001. Forty-nine people were killed and 53 were injured. There are plans to convert the premises into a memorial dedicated to the victims.

Comparing worst attacks by each method...

So...Truck....89 dead, 434 injured...

Gun: 49 dead, 53 injured in gun free zone.

So....which is worse....getting killed by a gun in a mass shooting, or getting run over by a truck in a mass, running over?

Dead is dead if you are a victim.

Don't be shy if you are you asking if getting a truck or gun needs to be more closely regulated. The comparison is valid.

Deferring to our criminal element I will just go to assume guns are the weapon of choice. Although vehicles can be quite deadly as well, no one wants to dent their car or something. Would you disagree guns are the weapon of choice for murderers in America?

Sure.....but it is also the tool of choice for law abiding people to fight off murderers...wouldn't you agree with that?

Yup I would agree.

Leaves us with the sloppiest written Ammendment and how the Founding Fathers treated guns to go by.

I'm not particularly anti gun. I own one and have even fired an AK (with a terribly unsighted scope!).

Honestly I am not sure if we would be safer with more or fewer guns.

Have you looked at the actual statisitics......as more Americans own and buy guns....200 million guns in the 1990s to 357-400 million guns in 2016...with over 15 million people now actually carrying guns for self defense.....our gun murder rate went down 49%....our gun crime rate went down 75%....and our violent crime rate went down 72%...

Actual research shows that at a minimum....normal, law abiding people carrying guns does not increase the crime rate or the gun crime rate, and may in fact help to lower it...a lot...

 

[2aguy]

In Stockholm, Sweden.....a country Trump mentioned has a tiny problem with their immigrant community.......a suspected muslim terrorists used a truck to kill 4 and injure 15....

And let us not forget the truck attack in Nice, France....

2016 Nice attack - Wikipedia

On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19 tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people[2] and injuring 434.[4][5][6][7][8]

And at the Pulse Night Club gun free zone...

Pulse (nightclub) - Wikipedia

On June 12, 2016, the club gained international attention as it was the scene of the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since the events of September 11, 2001. Forty-nine people were killed and 53 were injured. There are plans to convert the premises into a memorial dedicated to the victims.

Comparing worst attacks by each method...

So...Truck....89 dead, 434 injured...

Gun: 49 dead, 53 injured in gun free zone.

So....which is worse....getting killed by a gun in a mass shooting, or getting run over by a truck in a mass, running over?

Dead is dead if you are a victim.

Don't be shy if you are you asking if getting a truck or gun needs to be more closely regulated. The comparison is valid.

Deferring to our criminal element I will just go to assume guns are the weapon of choice. Although vehicles can be quite deadly as well, no one wants to dent their car or something. Would you disagree guns are the weapon of choice for murderers in America?

Sure.....but it is also the tool of choice for law abiding people to fight off murderers...wouldn't you agree with that?

Yup I would agree.

Leaves us with the sloppiest written Ammendment and how the Founding Fathers treated guns to go by.

I'm not particularly anti gun. I own one and have even fired an AK (with a terribly unsighted scope!).

Honestly I am not sure if we would be safer with more or fewer guns.

It wasn"t sloppily written.....those who hate guns deliberately ignore the Amendment and the "Right of the People ....shall not be infringed" because they have to ....because they don't have any other way to combat the Amendment...

 

[MisterBeale]

Dying in a mass truck run down.

At least in a mass shooting you have a small chance to rush the guy or pull your piece and be the hero.

 

[Toronado3800]

In Stockholm, Sweden.....a country Trump mentioned has a tiny problem with their immigrant community.......a suspected muslim terrorists used a truck to kill 4 and injure 15....

And let us not forget the truck attack in Nice, France....

2016 Nice attack - Wikipedia

On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19 tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people[2] and injuring 434.[4][5][6][7][8]

And at the Pulse Night Club gun free zone...

Pulse (nightclub) - Wikipedia

On June 12, 2016, the club gained international attention as it was the scene of the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since the events of September 11, 2001. Forty-nine people were killed and 53 were injured. There are plans to convert the premises into a memorial dedicated to the victims.

Comparing worst attacks by each method...

So...Truck....89 dead, 434 injured...

Gun: 49 dead, 53 injured in gun free zone.

So....which is worse....getting killed by a gun in a mass shooting, or getting run over by a truck in a mass, running over?

Dead is dead if you are a victim.

Don't be shy if you are you asking if getting a truck or gun needs to be more closely regulated. The comparison is valid.

Deferring to our criminal element I will just go to assume guns are the weapon of choice. Although vehicles can be quite deadly as well, no one wants to dent their car or something. Would you disagree guns are the weapon of choice for murderers in America?

Sure.....but it is also the tool of choice for law abiding people to fight off murderers...wouldn't you agree with that?

Yup I would agree.

Leaves us with the sloppiest written Ammendment and how the Founding Fathers treated guns to go by.

I'm not particularly anti gun. I own one and have even fired an AK (with a terribly unsighted scope!).

Honestly I am not sure if we would be safer with more or fewer guns.

It wasn"t sloppily written.....those who hate guns deliberately ignore the Amendment and the "Right of the People ....shall not be infringed" because they have to ....because they don't have any other way to combat the Amendment...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Ey, its not like until 1850 guns were limited to only militia members so OBVIOUSLY people who wrote the Constitution meant for people to generally own guns.

BUT, I have no clue what the mention of the militia is doing in there except causing confusion about how necessary it is to drill your militia for national defense. Seems like two trains of thought.

So effectively I believe the Constitution guarantees the right to own guns. I also find that sloppily written.

 

[Toronado3800]

In Stockholm, Sweden.....a country Trump mentioned has a tiny problem with their immigrant community.......a suspected muslim terrorists used a truck to kill 4 and injure 15....

And let us not forget the truck attack in Nice, France....

2016 Nice attack - Wikipedia

On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19 tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people[2] and injuring 434.[4][5][6][7][8]

And at the Pulse Night Club gun free zone...

Pulse (nightclub) - Wikipedia

On June 12, 2016, the club gained international attention as it was the scene of the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since the events of September 11, 2001. Forty-nine people were killed and 53 were injured. There are plans to convert the premises into a memorial dedicated to the victims.

Comparing worst attacks by each method...

So...Truck....89 dead, 434 injured...

Gun: 49 dead, 53 injured in gun free zone.

So....which is worse....getting killed by a gun in a mass shooting, or getting run over by a truck in a mass, running over?

Dead is dead if you are a victim.

Don't be shy if you are you asking if getting a truck or gun needs to be more closely regulated. The comparison is valid.

Deferring to our criminal element I will just go to assume guns are the weapon of choice. Although vehicles can be quite deadly as well, no one wants to dent their car or something. Would you disagree guns are the weapon of choice for murderers in America?

Sure.....but it is also the tool of choice for law abiding people to fight off murderers...wouldn't you agree with that?

Yup I would agree.

Leaves us with the sloppiest written Ammendment and how the Founding Fathers treated guns to go by.

I'm not particularly anti gun. I own one and have even fired an AK (with a terribly unsighted scope!).

Honestly I am not sure if we would be safer with more or fewer guns.

Have you looked at the actual statisitics......as more Americans own and buy guns....200 million guns in the 1990s to 357-400 million guns in 2016...with over 15 million people now actually carrying guns for self defense.....our gun murder rate went down 49%....our gun crime rate went down 75%....and our violent crime rate went down 72%...

Actual research shows that at a minimum....normal, law abiding people carrying guns does not increase the crime rate or the gun crime rate, and may in fact help to lower it...a lot...

I stand by my statement. Take away guns from everyone as you find them and you'll have fewer gun crimes in a few years.

Keep in mind besides such an act requiring a Constitutional Amendment I sorta like hunting and guns.

If we are talking about what I would do, its tighten gun resale laws in particular. W/O looking at the latest stats I'm going to hazard a guess most murders are not committed with guns just bought new legally.

Speaking of trucks lol. Its easier in Missouri to sell a gun than a truck!

 

[2aguy]

In Stockholm, Sweden.....a country Trump mentioned has a tiny problem with their immigrant community.......a suspected muslim terrorists used a truck to kill 4 and injure 15....

And let us not forget the truck attack in Nice, France....

2016 Nice attack - Wikipedia

On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19 tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people[2] and injuring 434.[4][5][6][7][8]

And at the Pulse Night Club gun free zone...

Pulse (nightclub) - Wikipedia

On June 12, 2016, the club gained international attention as it was the scene of the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since the events of September 11, 2001. Forty-nine people were killed and 53 were injured. There are plans to convert the premises into a memorial dedicated to the victims.

Comparing worst attacks by each method...

So...Truck....89 dead, 434 injured...

Gun: 49 dead, 53 injured in gun free zone.

So....which is worse....getting killed by a gun in a mass shooting, or getting run over by a truck in a mass, running over?

Dead is dead if you are a victim.

Don't be shy if you are you asking if getting a truck or gun needs to be more closely regulated. The comparison is valid.

Deferring to our criminal element I will just go to assume guns are the weapon of choice. Although vehicles can be quite deadly as well, no one wants to dent their car or something. Would you disagree guns are the weapon of choice for murderers in America?

Sure.....but it is also the tool of choice for law abiding people to fight off murderers...wouldn't you agree with that?

Yup I would agree.

Leaves us with the sloppiest written Ammendment and how the Founding Fathers treated guns to go by.

I'm not particularly anti gun. I own one and have even fired an AK (with a terribly unsighted scope!).

Honestly I am not sure if we would be safer with more or fewer guns.

Have you looked at the actual statisitics......as more Americans own and buy guns....200 million guns in the 1990s to 357-400 million guns in 2016...with over 15 million people now actually carrying guns for self defense.....our gun murder rate went down 49%....our gun crime rate went down 75%....and our violent crime rate went down 72%...

Actual research shows that at a minimum....normal, law abiding people carrying guns does not increase the crime rate or the gun crime rate, and may in fact help to lower it...a lot...

I stand by my statement. Take away guns from everyone as you find them and you'll have fewer gun crimes in a few years.

Keep in mind besides such an act requiring a Constitutional Amendment I sorta like hunting and guns.

If we are talking about what I would do, its tighten gun resale laws in particular. W/O looking at the latest stats I'm going to hazard a guess most murders are not committed with guns just bought new legally.

Speaking of trucks lol. Its easier in Missouri to sell a gun than a truck!

Except the criminals in countries that take guns from everyone, fail to take them from criminals.....Britain, Japan, Australia....and Europe.....the criminals have guns, the law abiding do not....

Here is the Small Arms survey stats on criminals in Britain, banned guns, and Japan....bans guns...

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/file...0/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2010-Chapter-04-EN.pdf



The most systematic surveys to examine gang gun use outside the United States focus on England and Wales. Among gang members arrested there, one study found that between 50 and 59 per cent reported having had a gun at some point during their years as members (Bennett and Holloway, 2004a, pp. 316–19). Another report found that as many as 60 per cent of British gang convicts reported using handguns (Bennett and Holloway, 2004b, p. 243). To be sure, such findings do not mean all British gang members are likely to carry guns.

-------

But this impression of widespread gang gun ownership, reinforced by the hugely disproportionate role of gangs in British gun violence, is compelling. All these findings suggest far higher gang gun ownership in England and Wales than for the civilian population as a whole. These are low- to mid-level gun-owning societies, where there are approximately six civilian firearms for every 100 people, including legally registered rifles and shotguns, as well as illegal handguns.
-------
Another English and Welsh survey found gang membership increased the likelihood of firearm ownership by a factor of five among 17–24-year-olds (Marshall et al., 2005).
=====================

The latter is hardly exceptional internationally, but it means the Yakuza control a remarkable proportion of all civilian firearms in Japan, between 7 and 14 per cent. The Yakuza, in other words, are armed about 200 times more heavily than Japanese society generally. Among the examples explored here, Japan has the highest concentration of firearms among its gangsters. Japanese gangs are heavily armed by any standard, but, in comparison with the rest of Japanese society, they are extraordinary.

And it also supports the point I keep making......gang culture determines the murder rate...since they all have access to guns....it is just that some criminal cultures do not resort to violence as quickly as other criminal cultures in other countries......

Armed gang members appear to be most common in societies afflicted by both high membership and gun ownership. South Africa’s Western Cape province probably has the most serious gang guns problem anywhere, ranking at the top of both scales. In Western Cape, gangs appear to have roughly 51,000 out of the suspected total of 570,000 firearms in civilian hands in the region, or close to 10 per cent. These figures are similar to levels of gang gun ownership in Japan, but South African gangs are much more violent (GANG VIOLENCE)

 

[DarkFury]

In Stockholm, Sweden.....a country Trump mentioned has a tiny problem with their immigrant community.......a suspected muslim terrorists used a truck to kill 4 and injure 15....

And let us not forget the truck attack in Nice, France....

2016 Nice attack - Wikipedia

On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19 tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people[2] and injuring 434.[4][5][6][7][8]

And at the Pulse Night Club gun free zone...

Pulse (nightclub) - Wikipedia

On June 12, 2016, the club gained international attention as it was the scene of the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since the events of September 11, 2001. Forty-nine people were killed and 53 were injured. There are plans to convert the premises into a memorial dedicated to the victims.

Comparing worst attacks by each method...

So...Truck....89 dead, 434 injured...

Gun: 49 dead, 53 injured in gun free zone.

So....which is worse....getting killed by a gun in a mass shooting, or getting run over by a truck in a mass, running over?

Dead is dead if you are a victim.

Don't be shy if you are you asking if getting a truck or gun needs to be more closely regulated. The comparison is valid.

Deferring to our criminal element I will just go to assume guns are the weapon of choice. Although vehicles can be quite deadly as well, no one wants to dent their car or something. Would you disagree guns are the weapon of choice for murderers in America?

Sure.....but it is also the tool of choice for law abiding people to fight off murderers...wouldn't you agree with that?

Yup I would agree.

Leaves us with the sloppiest written Ammendment and how the Founding Fathers treated guns to go by.

I'm not particularly anti gun. I own one and have even fired an AK (with a terribly unsighted scope!).

Honestly I am not sure if we would be safer with more or fewer guns.

It wasn"t sloppily written.....those who hate guns deliberately ignore the Amendment and the "Right of the People ....shall not be infringed" because they have to ....because they don't have any other way to combat the Amendment...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Ey, its not like until 1850 guns were limited to only militia members so OBVIOUSLY people who wrote the Constitution meant for people to generally own guns.

BUT, I have no clue what the mention of the militia is doing in there except causing confusion about how necessary it is to drill your militia for national defense. Seems like two trains of thought.

So effectively I believe the Constitution guarantees the right to own guns. I also find that sloppily written.

I think it breaks down rather easy really. ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," We had NO standing national army when that was written, states armed and supported their own armies.

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The people were then given the right to bear arms in case of a rouge state militia.

If anything the Constitution never speaks of a NATIONAL army.

 

[Dekster]

Dead is dead if you are a victim.

I am guessing as for worse it depends largely on whether or not you know its coming. In either situation there are scenarios in which you would and some in which you would not know it was coming. With the firearms there would be the added factor of where you were hit. The fear is probably the "worse" factor.