Is banning guns to save lives even logical?

[Daryl Hunt]

Rifles alone. You left out handguns and shotguns and the biggy, Firearms Unknown for a total of 13,896.
But you did include all knives or cutting instruments including anything with a blade including garden shears, hoes, shovels, paper cutters, industrial metal shears, etc. for a total of 1604. You also left out the fact that the majority of the Murders in almost EVERY state was done by Firearms.

Now, find me a chart with just Knives on it versus Rifles and then we can compare. But I think you will find that when you remove box cutters and other bladed things , knife homicides will drastically shrink in numbers while the Rifle will stay consistent. Plus, there is a section in the table where it's difficult to tell if the murder was done by either a rifle or a handgun since the 9mm is used in both.

You just pulled another Kleck. Nice tradition you have going there.

I am practicing how to be an ABNORMAL...STILL CAN'T BEAT "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor"....Surrender Monkey has these moves down pat!

And that was caused by the various HMOs and Insurance Companies where the Doctors were forced to do certain actions. Obamacare had nothing to do with it. If I had my way, the HMOs and Insurance Companies would be all fined into non existance and let the Hospitals and Doctors have the ultimate control like before the HMOs and Insurance Companies grabbed the lions share "For the Good of the Community".

Thank you for showing that you lost the argument and allowing me to address your strawman post so easily. Hows it feel to be purchased by the HMOs, Pharamas and Insurance Companies. I wouldn't know since I am not. But you should be able to tell us.

No idea I'm on medicare!....

Wyyy, that would make you a Socialist. A Friggin Communist

No Medicare was never free., You're confusing government programs and services with socialism

I see. I you get it it's government services and you deserve it. But if I get it then it's welfare and it's socialism. That makes sense. Well, you "Government Services" is being cut as of this year. And it's going to be cut even more next year. You see, Trump sees it the same way except if he and his rich buddies get it it's "Government Services and Entitlements" and if you, I and anyone else gets it it's welfare. Now it's making sense.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

They want to ban 'assault weapons' which are competely legal typical semi-auto rifles that look 'scary.'

They look like they do because every inch of them has the function of killing humans. Not one ounce is to look scary, sexy or anything else. They could have included a lip gloss applicator on a hand grenade but didn't since a lip gloss applicator had no function in killing humans. Same goes for the AR. It's designed for a scared shitless 18 year old fresh out of basic, pumped up on adrenaline, under heavy fire, very little training and being able to kill at a very high rate very quickly. Every piece of the AR is designed for this. Nothing is left over for anything else. So if it looks scary that's because it is. And it is scary for a damned good reason.

 

[Leo123]

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.

They want to ban 'assault weapons' which are competely legal typical semi-auto rifles that look 'scary.'

They look like they do because every inch of them has the function of killing humans. Not one ounce is to look scary, sexy or anything else. They could have included a lip gloss applicator on a hand grenade but didn't since a lip gloss applicator had no function in killing humans. Same goes for the AR. It's designed for a scared shitless 18 year old fresh out of basic, pumped up on adrenaline, under heavy fire, very little training and being able to kill at a very high rate very quickly. Every piece of the AR is designed for this. Nothing is left over for anything else. So if it looks scary that's because it is. And it is scary for a damned good reason.

OK, here we have a gun-grabber trying to convince us that a certain gun has an attitude. Hey Daryl, a gun is an INANIMATE object. The only ones attributing 'scary' to certain guns are gun-grabbers. My 20 guage has a nice wood stock and is very pretty bu, it'll kill almost anything it is aimed at. Conversely, it'll 'kill' skeet in a shooting competition. It doesn't matter what the gun 'looks like.' Get it now?

 

[Lesh]

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.

They want to ban 'assault weapons' which are competely legal typical semi-auto rifles that look 'scary.'

They look like they do because every inch of them has the function of killing humans. Not one ounce is to look scary, sexy or anything else. They could have included a lip gloss applicator on a hand grenade but didn't since a lip gloss applicator had no function in killing humans. Same goes for the AR. It's designed for a scared shitless 18 year old fresh out of basic, pumped up on adrenaline, under heavy fire, very little training and being able to kill at a very high rate very quickly. Every piece of the AR is designed for this. Nothing is left over for anything else. So if it looks scary that's because it is. And it is scary for a damned good reason.

OK, here we have a gun-grabber trying to convince us that a certain gun has an attitude. Hey Daryl, a gun is an INANIMATE object. The only ones attributing 'scary' to certain guns are gun-grabbers. My 20 guage has a nice wood stock and is very pretty bu, it'll kill almost anything it is aimed at. Conversely, it'll 'kill' skeet in a shooting competition. It doesn't matter what the gun 'looks like.' Get it now?

Your 20 ga shotgun has a completely different ability to kill in large numbers than an AR

 

[Leo123]

Your 20 ga shotgun has a completely different ability to kill in large numbers than an AR

So what? It will still kill what it is aimed at. Which was the point my point. Isn't that 'scary?' I guaran-damn-tee.... you'd be peeing your pants if one was leveled at you and you were unarmed.

 

[Brain357]

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?

Countries with strong gun control don’t suffer regular mass shootings and have homicide rates a fraction of ours.

 

[Lesh]

Your 20 ga shotgun has a completely different ability to kill in large numbers than an AR

So what? It will still kill what it is aimed at. Which was the point my point. Isn't that 'scary?' I guaran-damn-tee.... you'd be peeing your pants if one was leveled at you and you were unarmed.

So what?

You see no difference from someone going off and shooting someone and someone like Paduch shooting 550 in Vegas?

 

[satrebil]

 

[Brain357]

View attachment 274547

And the right has an irrational fear of being without them. Vegas proved liberals right.

 

[Leo123]

Your 20 ga shotgun has a completely different ability to kill in large numbers than an AR

So what? It will still kill what it is aimed at. Which was the point my point. Isn't that 'scary?' I guaran-damn-tee.... you'd be peeing your pants if one was leveled at you and you were unarmed.

So what?

You see no difference from someone going off and shooting someone and someone like Paduch shooting 550 in Vegas?

Look dufus, you can kill a lot of folks with a semi-auto ANYTHING what it LOOKS like is beside the point. When did I EVER say a 20 gauge is the same as an AR or any other type firearm? Apparently you are so eager to gun-grab you can't even stick to the thread of a post. Either that or you're just trolling. Here is a tactical shotgun

Looks scary? It's just a pump shotgun.

This one will kill you just as quickly.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Wrong, shit for brains, plenty of left wingers have supported banning guns. The Dim candidates have all used code words to hide the position on the issue, but the minute the political winds are blowing in the right direction, they will confiscate our guns.

 

[bripat9643]

View attachment 274547

And the right has an irrational fear of being without them. Vegas proved liberals right.

There's nothing irrational about that fear.

 

[satrebil]

Your 20 ga shotgun has a completely different ability to kill in large numbers than an AR

So what? It will still kill what it is aimed at. Which was the point my point. Isn't that 'scary?' I guaran-damn-tee.... you'd be peeing your pants if one was leveled at you and you were unarmed.

So what?

You see no difference from someone going off and shooting someone and someone like Paduch shooting 550 in Vegas?

Any gun has the ability to "mass kill", doofus. The Virginia tech shooter killed 32 people with 2 pistols. One of them was a .22 ffs.

 

[satrebil]

View attachment 274547

And the right has an irrational fear of being without them. Vegas proved liberals right.

Tell me more about "irrational fear".

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

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?

Thank you.
You put the insanity of those crying for additional "gun control" into perspective and clearly exposed the erroneous fanaticism to disarm Americans that they embrace.

 

[Lesh]

Your 20 ga shotgun has a completely different ability to kill in large numbers than an AR

So what? It will still kill what it is aimed at. Which was the point my point. Isn't that 'scary?' I guaran-damn-tee.... you'd be peeing your pants if one was leveled at you and you were unarmed.

So what?

You see no difference from someone going off and shooting someone and someone like Paduch shooting 550 in Vegas?

Any gun has the ability to "mass kill", doofus. The Virginia tech shooter killed 32 people with 2 pistols. One of them was a .22 ffs.

Exactly. All were magazine fed semi-autos

 

[bripat9643]

Your 20 ga shotgun has a completely different ability to kill in large numbers than an AR

So what? It will still kill what it is aimed at. Which was the point my point. Isn't that 'scary?' I guaran-damn-tee.... you'd be peeing your pants if one was leveled at you and you were unarmed.

So what?

You see no difference from someone going off and shooting someone and someone like Paduch shooting 550 in Vegas?

Any gun has the ability to "mass kill", doofus. The Virginia tech shooter killed 32 people with 2 pistols. One of them was a .22 ffs.

Exactly. All were magazine fed semi-autos

You are proposing to ban all semi-automatics?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

They look like they do because every inch of them has the function of killing humans..

On Count One the Court of Common Sense finds you.......WRONG !!!!!!!!!

Every inch of them has the primary function of DEFENDING HUMAN LIVES.
(Don't blame the Right, or the tool....just because the Left is violent and uses them for nefarious purposes)
It's YOUR perspective that's twisted and dangerous.

 

[Leo123]

View attachment 274547

And the right has an irrational fear of being without them. Vegas proved liberals right.

It's not irrational, it's just good sense in this era of Democrat-Neo-Marxist societal de-construction.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

They want to ban 'assault weapons' which are competely legal typical semi-auto rifles that look 'scary.'

They look like they do because every inch of them has the function of killing humans. Not one ounce is to look scary, sexy or anything else. They could have included a lip gloss applicator on a hand grenade but didn't since a lip gloss applicator had no function in killing humans. Same goes for the AR. It's designed for a scared shitless 18 year old fresh out of basic, pumped up on adrenaline, under heavy fire, very little training and being able to kill at a very high rate very quickly. Every piece of the AR is designed for this. Nothing is left over for anything else. So if it looks scary that's because it is. And it is scary for a damned good reason.

Intelligent people laugh at your theory that guns can be made safe.