You pretend to labor under the delusion that disarming innocent people will somehow disarm killers. In reality I know you don't believe that But you don't push gun bans because you really care about public safety either
I know the pro gun crowd is very fond of using other items to compare, but it's always a poor argument. The gun's main purpose is to shoot, and with handguns (and I'd argue semi-automatic "assault rifles" as well), the object is to shoot people (whether you are shooting in aggression or self-defense). Even if some people use the gun for other purposes, the primary intention of the gun is to shoot people. The primary purpose of a car is not to run over people. The primary purpose of a car is transportation.You can kill somebody with a car very easily and quickly as well.
I'm all for improving safety in cars. But I'm in favor of safety in general and large magazines in rapid fire rifles and handguns which account for something around 80% of homicides (the number I've heard, I don't know the exact number) clearly do not suggest safety to me.
But of the people who are murdered, the percentage who are murdered by firearm is outrageous. Here's the first source I found when Googling "usa homicides":The percentage of guns used to kill is miniscule.
Homicides in the USA: 16,259
Homicide by firearm: 11,078
FASTSTATS - Homicide
Almost 70% of the murders in the United States were done by firearm in 2010. And to prevent an Archie Bunker, no I would not feel any better if "they was pushed out of windows". But surely we can look at those numbers and say SOMETHING should be done.
A handgun ban will not pass and is very unlikely to be survive a Supreme Court ruling if it did. So let's take care of at least part of the problem.And yet the proposed legislation is to take away something that is far less deadly in real life as other methods and it is pushed by exploiting the death of children.
But the point I was making was that after correctly assessing how silly it was to say certain people don't care about children, you turned around and did the exact same thing.But if we actually talk about how to reduce child death, well, according to the left we are off subject.
And that's just incredibly false. I don't consider myself "left" on every issue, but I guess I am on this issue. And I care very much about saving lives, children and adults.So the discussion is at it's very base a lie, which is one reason opposition is so high. I'm suggesting an honest discussion of how to save the most children. Those on the left have no interest in this discussion.
Here's what I know. As the number of households which own a gun has decreased, so has crime (and yes, I know you would argue more guns during that time period). I know other countries have much lower gun homicide rates (and homicide rates in general). I know in 2010, roughly 70% of Americans who were murdered were killed by a gun (a statistic I'm fairly certain is consistent). At some point, don't we have to stop and say, "Maybe we should try something else"?
The status quo isn't working. That is painfully obvious. The push to resist change just doesn't make sense to me when we CLEARLY have a problem. And arming teachers or beefing up security systems at schools does nothing for shopping malls, Wal-Mart, churches, domestic issues, etc. I'm looking to protect everyone as a whole, not just focus on one area.
Thanks. It's easily one of my favorite shows and James Spader is simply phenomenal.Great avy BTW. Love that show. The arrogance of the two main characters is very entertaining.
What kind of homicides compose this 70%, and make sure to also account for the different degrees for each kind of homicide. Brake it down.
Words mean things. Words matter.
Last edited by Jerry; 04-10-13 at 09:17 PM.
But my mistaking homicide and murder, while a good catch on your part and ignorance on mine, doesn't change the point of the message, which is guns are responsible for nearly 70% of homicides in America. Surely we can look at that and say SOMETHING is wrong.