Guns versus baseball bats. Which kills more?
Posted by staff / February 8, 2013 GoogleIn gun control posts, someone always says, “X kills more people than guns so why don’t we regulate X more,” where X = baseball bats, bathtubs, you name it. Snopes looked into this claim:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp
How about cars? If you think about it, cars are very regulated: you need a license which involves a written and on-the-road test, there are classes of licenses so you can’t drive a bus if you’re only licensed for a car, you must have insurance, cars are registered, and when you buy a car at a car show, you have to register it.
Photo credit: UCinternational via Wikipedia
Google+: View post on Google+
I'd say, people do.
Neither, put it into perspective, it's the brain, pandering doesn't help.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But guns should be taken away from people because they make it easy for people to kill MANY people.
I for one am pushing for bat control! Cause dang it, they are everywhere – even kids have em! Kids!
countries have banned public use of baseball bats over violence…
but you can always carry a gun in some places in the usa…. good to know
What really got to me was when i visited New York and did that top of the rock thingy a sign was put up halfway up the building declaring "no guns beyond this point". What. The. Heck. So some guy could have brought a gun in all the way up to here?
+Guy Kawasaki women have to go though more to get birth control then people do to get a gun. Does that make sense?
Taking the statement at face value (I’ll debunk it below*), it still TOTALLY makes sense.
Not only can prescription drugs be dangerous, but correct usage often determines whether the drug will be effective. Dosages can vary by body weight and what other drugs may be in the system. For instance, one entire class of medicine I take won’t work if I eat grapefruits. So it makes sense that an examination and education are part of the process for any prescription medication.
On top of that, there is no *right* in the United States to any particular medication, particularly for non-life-threatening conditions. Often, the person taking prescription birth control pills is not the one paying for it (e.g., they have insurance or Obamacare), so additional financial safeguards make sense.
However, the Second Amendment to the (US) Constitution guarantees that Americans’ right to own guns “shall not be infringed.” That may have seemed more important in the 19th century than it does in the 21st, but that — and intense lobbying — is the reason there isn’t more gun regulation than there is.
*The original statement is a “straw man” argument. It’s so vague that it posits something that isn’t actually true. To “get birth control” in California a woman needs only to walk into any drug store, pick up a package of condoms, slap some cash on the counter and walk out. Try that in a gun store.
You can't have my bat! I need it for the Zombie Apocalypse.
Snopes?
Moving along….
We need to bring back the 24 hour porn theatre.
More importantly if cars, hammers, kitchen knives etc are just as lethal then my question, since most people already have such lethal items as cars, knives why do they need guns?
The statistic that baseball bats kill more people than guns is 100% wrong. It has been misinterpreted repeatedly in the media. The actual fact is that more people were killed with blunt objects (baseball bats, clubs, lead pipe, candle stick in the library) than were killed with RIFLES. NOT GUNS…just Rifles. Rifle is a sub set of "Gun". The AR-15 is a subset of Rifle. So a more accurate comparison would be to say that more people were killed with baseball bats than with AR-15s. (I don't know if that is actually true. FBI Crime stats don't break down the type of rifle or blunt object that is used in a homicide, just that it was a rifle or a blunt object.
The argument that you have to have a license to drive a car, why not to own a gun is baseless. Driving is a privilege, the "right to keep and bear arms" is a right guaranteed to us by the Constitution. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says you have the right to swift and speedy transportation.
HOWEVER, having said that…I would agree that a system to educate future potential gun owners would be a great idea. A class that taught responsible handling of weapons, storage, upkeep and what laws dictate when it is legal to use a weapon for defense etc. I think you'll find that alot of gun owners would be willing to get behind that. You take the class, pass the test, you're certified to own weapons…
I can't get behind a firearms registry for the simple fact that the next step after registration is confiscation. Don't say it can't happen…it has happened, and it's happened more than once.
1) I notice how cars and drunk driving were left completely out of that Snopes link.
2) You have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. You do not have one to a car or birth control.
If gun control reduced violence, Chicago would be a haven of low crime and homicide, as it has some of the strictest gun laws in country. If you look at Chicago's crime rates, they're higher than the rest of IL, and much higher than the surrounding states that all allow some form of conceal or open carry. So maybe, just maybe, it's not the guns. If it was the guns, the surrounding states would have much higher crime/homicide rates as the surrounding states have less restrictive gun laws.
I wrote a blog post about this that includes links to the sources I used. (http://mkoby.com/2013/01/31/the-logic-of-gun-control-advocates/)
Most cars aren't used for deliberate homicides, however.
Most guns aren’t used for deliberate homicides, either.
For most values of X cited, however, there is not an amendment to the Constitution stating that the right to keep and bear X shall not be infringed.
most people ignore the extensive data offered by the Bureau of Justice reports…. Little of it supports any of the Pro-Gun argument(s)
One interesting one: In 1980 if someone was killed during a crime, there was about a ~50% chance it was with a firearm. In 2008, that was almost 80%. and if someone is having an affair and killed by an enraged spouse, it is almost always with a gun.
Over all violent crime is down, but is still twice what it was in 1960
,after it peaked in the early `90's and dropped in the few years following the AWB, coincidentally I am sure but the data shows just that …..
I would have to argue that People kill far more than Guns, Knives, Baseball Bats, Cars, Planes and Pianos combined. Because without a person to use it, all the others are just non-malicious objects.
As a gun owner, I think there should be multi-level user licensing (caliber, muzzle velocity, number of rounds, etc.), registration, requiring locked storage, etc. That way, a demonstrably competent and safe owner can use the best tool for the job.
You have the right to own a firearm. You don't have the right to shoot me with it.
Here is a fairly well thought argument describing this same point. http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2007/01/brin-classics-jefferson-rifle.html
+Brian Prewett that statement has been used in many forms but it omits one key detail and is more correctly stated in a way like:
" People with Guns, Knives, Baseball Bats, Cars, Planes and Pianos kill far more than Guns, Knives, Baseball Bats, Cars, Planes and Pianos combined."
Guns do not kill, people with guns kill with guns.
Also remember it's a lot harder to kill someone with a bat than a gun, so while bat homicides are going to be lower, instances of assault would most likely be higher. Im speculating because I'm not going to pour thru stats from a phone screen.
+Michael Koby To add to the DUI point, I did look up the number of car accidents relating to cell phone use. 2011.. 6+ million accidents. Some of those will be fender benders, but I'm personally aware of a few life ending situations as well.
+Mike Mac Na, I stated it right; Because the objects are irrelevant. When guns didn't exist, People used Swords, Bows and Bowling Pins… I suspect you may be racist against objects, sir, Judging their intentions by their cover. Education is the key; We have educated cars to the point that when they think you are drunk, they will not allow you to use them. One day we will apply it to Guns, When they sense you are in a certain emotional state, they too will deny you the use of their body.
So what. Maybe the WH should release a photo of Obama swinging a baseball bat?
We're not allowed to own guns in the UK (with a few small exceptions) and we don't really have any gun crime and we have a much lower murder rate overall.
As you Americans would say.. "Go Figure".
The right to "keep and bear" arms is preceded by the clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". The second part of that sentence doesn't stand by itself. People who have no understanding of law (or of plain English) try to use one half of the sentence as an argument. Laws are written in language thus every word is important.
Furthermore, the law says nothing about "ammunition", merely "arms". It also does not give the right to trade in or sell arms (or even purchase for that matter, merely to keep and bear). The government could just as easily implement some kind of regulation or even a outright ban on the sales of one or many or all kinds of ammunition and/or arms without infringing on the second amendment.
All arguments aside, until you deal with the US Constitutions it does not matter. It is very clear and concise. Do not infringe (definition: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another) the right to bear arms. IF this is not clear enough for you, then read the Federalist Papers or the history of the formation of the 2nd Amendment. It is clear the framers of the the US Constitution wanted nothing keeping the people from protecting themselves not from bears, or deer, or your neighbor, but from a tyrannical government. That is why they did not want the government to have anything to do with the right of the people to own a gun. Gun registration is bordering on an infringement (historically registration leads to confiscation), Federal background checks are an infringement (as well as a violation of my privacy), any weapon specific ban is an infringement, ban on magazine size is an infringement, etc. But instead we falter to the emotionally feely good which results in trading some liberty for some safety, and ending up with neither.
Answer to the Constitution first, although the other arguments are logical. If infringing Constitutional rights are necessary to protect even just one life then regulating all things that are used in killing should be done even if to save just one life.
If guns are banned in your country what does a killer use?
+Terry Lee So you're saying that Convicted Murderers not being allowed to own a gun anymore is a violation of their rights?
Richard: One of the 300 million guns that somehow do not magically disappear.
Wait has there been any restrictions on COMMON SENSE, because it sure looks like it….
That is a weak straw man argument, and conviction in crime removes a lot of your rights, so removing gun rights would not be unusual. But I am not talking about criminals. I am talking about law abiding citizens for whom these laws will affect. It will not affect those who will already break the law by killing someone. Come on. I am willing to take someone else's life but that restriction on magazine size or assault rifles, oh I can 't break that law. Common sense for sure.
Yet, we removed no rights from the Wall Street "pros and ceos" that nearly destroyed us all…They still have the same access to the weapons they used. You're right Common Sense must have been surgically removed from many a citizen.
+Jason Odell Neither are most guns.
ya but now subtract the number of homicides committed in self-defense, and by police officers. they're obviously not using bats. and we need a taser column. 🙂
+Brian Prewett people with weapons kill.
People with a:
1. weapon
2. motive
3. opportunity
No amount of argument will ever put a dent in the fact that reducing accessibility to the number of weapons available will reduce crime rate with said weapons. Eliminate? no. Reduce. Absolutely.
wow homicides are way way down.. how are car deaths doing?
How long until we ban cars, roads, drivers and invade Detroit, because the auto industry hates our freedoms?
+Jason Stevens I think the point is, homicides are way down but the ratio of homicides with guns is up. The reports seem to say about 30% increase in death-by-firearm.
Comparing cars to guns is pretty ridiculous. If you want to compare them, then people would have to walk around with their guns loaded and pointed at people. Imagine walking around NYC with everyone holding guns pointed at each other. Sounds ridiculous? Exactly.
Awesome museum, if you are ever in Louisville, its a must see.
fbi says there is 200MM guns, and 243 million cars.. I'd say it is a bang on comparison. #banthecars
+Jason Stevens People don't walk around with their guns pointed at everyone around them. The comparison is utterly ridiculous.
The comparison is totally correct, americans have this thing called conceal carry, they take them everywhere, while they are driving. again #banthecars americans are unsafe on the road!
interesting to note, that while firearm related death is up 30% from 1980 to 2008, auto deaths have dropped by in 1980 there were 51,000 some deaths due to autos, that number has trended down down down in 2008 there were 37,000 and 2011 there were 32,000. almost a 30% decrease in raw deaths, 66% lower per auto… and almost 60% lower per capita….
Looks like you will need another argument…….
32,000 > 8,000 .. cars kill! #banthecars
+Jason Stevens To make the comparison those carrying concealed weapons would actually need to have them out, loaded, finger on the trigger and pointed at people. Not that it's equivalent to driving a car, but it certainly is much closer. You can't kill someone with a gun when it's in your pocket, but you can when you're behind the wheel of a moving vehicle.
why so protective of cars that kill? But thanks for proving my point it has nothing to do with preventing numbers of deaths, just some other agenda. thanks for playing.
+Jason Stevens Just trying to show the ridiculousness of making the comparison.
300,000 people in the US die each year from sudden cardiac arrest. Yet we have few laws requiring #CPR training or public access AED's. We spend millions on reinforcing cars, building "safer" highways and enforcing traffic laws. Now we're going to propose more gun laws. More ATF, more background checks, more infrastructure to support and costs to bear. Yet we do little, if anything, to save lives from those things that really do impact us the most.
Heck, let's let people buy RPGs, bazookas, M1 tanks. Make it legal. What the heck.
+Mike Mac The human mind is the most powerful weapon on the planet. Ban nuclear weapons, it will design anthrax, ban anthrax it will design a sonic blaster, ban the sonic blaster it'll design a harmonic pulse laser, ban the harmonic pulse laser it'll design something else. Motive is not always present and can also be created by the mind, opportunities are more often a creation of planning(which is done in the mind of a person) than random happenings. People, not objects are the cause of any murder, But, by educating the objects they can outsmart the people, since the people, oftentimes, don't take to true education very well.
lol they let people buy H1's H2's and SUV's close enough to tanks.. and of course cars that kill 😛
People bringing up the gun restrictions of Chicago and NYC as reasons why gun control doesn't work do not have the ability to reason or comprehend the world around them.
Yes, Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the United States but continues to have one of the worst homicide rates in the country but…why ? For one it is a very populated city, more people in a smaller area equals more crime. Two, Chicago is filled with many impovished areas, high crime is common place with people who struggle economically. Three, you can 5 miles outside of Chicago and buy all the guns you want.
You can use the above example for NYC as well, if you do not have a universal comprehensive gun control law you will always have trouble enforcing stricter gun control in an area surrounded by laxer laws.
Its as bad as when people use " Guns don't kill people, people kill people."…that is a simplistic argument to hide the fact that a lot of crimes are committed by people with guns. I also think the " car argument is used a lot by dimwited gun owners…yes, cars kill people when misused, but cats were not invented to kill, they were invented for transportation with a hazardous side effect of the possabilty of harm. On the other hand, guns were invented for one purpose, that is to kill and to kill fast…period. To compare objects that were invented for good intentions to one made for bad intentions is ignoring the obvious.
i know its a joke but if ppl seriously could have tanks, LRAD, and tank busters then it wouldn't really matter who had tanks would it? i mean it would level the playing field. its only the unfair advantage that is to be feared, not the technology or the people necessarily.
+Richard Ferrick "If guns are banned in your country what does a killer use?"
Simple, they don't. We have far less murderers and far less murders. When people are murdered it tends to be a knife or a glass bottle, but you can't kill 20 people with a knife.
There are a small minority of killings with guns but they are isolated because it's so hard to get a gun on the black market here, you certainly can't buy an assault rifle.
We just don't have the mass killings here. We don't glorify weaponry like the USA does.
+Jeff Kasten You can compare Cars to Guns like this: A car is = to a concealed gun. A drunk person driving a car is = to a person walking around the mall with a gun pointed at everyone, finger on the trigger. In both cases, accidents can happen… people accidentally discharge guns from their pockets… sober people driving cars accidentally crash…
What about handguns which kills two to three (depending on the year) times more than "Other Guns" according to the data presented. Yet no one is mentioning them. Why not? The case President Obama makes against assault rifles is hypocritical. Handguns were used in 68% of the homicides last year but all we hear about is assault rifles and 30 round clips. It occurs to me that banning handguns altogether would have the greatest affect of reducing gun homicides. If saving children is really President Obama's goal than handguns should be his priority. Gun control in Washington really isn't about keeping our kids safe its about politics as usual! #guncontrol
Abuse of POWER could happen in any field, no matter in “control” of a baseball bat or just a car or other humans. While some could use their power, when in “control” of something that could be dangerous, to stop a conflict to escalate (a new atomic war for example) others can’t just USE and not ABUSE, no matter the object of their power. It’s all about how much someone is ready to abuse a type or higher level of power, in my opinion.
+Paul Greenwood Thats because handguns aren't effective in resisting tyranny, and AR-15's are.
+Mike Morelli I can easily rework my microwave to devastate a small city before anyone even knows wtf… Wanna ban microwave ovens!? IMO happy people don't often kill people… If we wanna stop people from killing people: A) lets stop prescribing all pills and substances that cause 1. Suicidal Thoughts or Tendencies. 2. Depression. and B) Focus more on a Positive Reward system where people are rewarded for working towards or accomplishing our Common Goals than the current Negative Penalty based system…
is it made out of wood?
Finally, I suppose that all the baseballs, cars, microwave and weapons' possessors are registered somewhere and not anyone could have one…
+Jason Odell
And you have the right to defend yourself against someone trying to shoot you.
+Jason Odell Most guns aren't used for deliberate homicides, however. There are 300,000,000 privately owned firearms in the US. There are slightly less than 10,000 homicides with guns each year in the US. That means that 0.004% of guns are used in murders, or 99.996% of all guns are NOT used to kill someone. Seems there must be plenty of uses for guns besides killing people, since so few are used for that purpose.
+Brian Prewett There is quite a difference in scale, though. There are about 44,000 accidental deaths involving cars every year, and there are about 1,200 accidental deaths involving guns every year. By that measure, guns are far, far safer than cars. The point is this: the vast majority of gun deaths are deliberate acts of homicide or suicide. The root cause of violence is the variable we should be addressing, not the cosmetic characteristics of firearms that make them look evil.
When under attacked by guns you can't run or hide neither you can see your assailant.
With anything else you have a good chance to escape.
Great weapon of choice to kill time and boredom by hobbyists but not for killing innocent or unarmed creatures.
I guess my military training to seek cover when under fire was useless then. After all, you can’t run or hide. I guess firing back at the person firing at you is no good, either. I never knew you magically become invisible by holding a gun.
Who says more homocides are committed by baseball bats? This is very misleading because its only talking about homocides. The argument is that more DEATHS, not necessarily homocides are caused by any particular thing. That IS true.
Cars, licensing, regulations, and taxes/fees/etc are also regulated independently by each state, not the federal government.
+Debashish Samaddar
Read it in its entirety and the people are clearly the militia referenced earlier.
Did anyone ask about drones that kill children?
Oops sorry to derail again
Perhaps you should be trained, licensed, and insured to speak publicly or print anything, as well, if we're going to go with the car analogy.
thats a big baseball bat
Next thing you'll tell me us that a warrior society is violent. Did Sparta compile any stats? No.. Probably not but Athens may have…
+Debashish Samaddar
The Militia Act of 1792 conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.
If you wanna kill, you'll kill…. Even with a spoon.
Once again no one has answered the Constitutional question, because you cannot. It is the foundation of our country and if you are not from our country I don't really care what you think. Not because I don't like you, but because it is not your founding document. It is not the framework for your country. If your country wishes to do something differently then judge that I will not. And those countries that have banned guns, still have gun crime. So even where guns are banned outright, you still have gun violence. By the way countries where guns are banned, most of them are totalitarian regimes who regularly abuse their people. So in a total picture spanning outside of your gun banning country to all gun banning countries let us look at gun violence including that perpetrated by the government itself. If you could even get that stat, it would certainly tip the scale of violence by guns to gun free countries. But this is a wasted discussion, because Constitutionalist will not relent and gun-control advocates will not either (because the larger portion of them do not care about the Constitution). Neither will probably compromise because the constituency on either side will not except it. In that case you have to fall on the founding document and the liberty they provide.
Guns kill at a distance … of course, baseball bats don't. It stands to reason that guns are more deadly, and they are readily available. Somebody suggested that if you kick somebody "Your leg becomes a weapon". Well, yes … but a bomb is a weapon. Does that mean because the NRA supports guns, they support bombs, too? What a pointless argument, and intellectually and morally bankrupt.
Does anyone think that the original authors and voters on the constitution might have reworded it if they could foresee that particular civil liberty gave rise to the slaughter of children with auto and semi-automatic weapons? #Think. It's not that hard. Change the laws.
No the founders would be horrified that people weren’t responsible for their own and others safety. What stops an evil man with a musket? A good man with a musket. They wanted people to be responsible adults and support one another. Everyone should carry the tools appropriate to self defense (and defense of others).
Ladies and Gentlemen the road to a totalitarian government is paved with banning the citizens right to bare arms. That road goes through the gates of background checks (marking the gun owner) and gun registration (marking the gun) and then marches us under the bridge of confiscation.
Right, +Mike Morelli , but how do you subdue the person with gun whose killing many people? There are always going to be weapons.
Paul Mackie, surely the original authors of the Constitution might have reworded it if they realized something like the Internet would allow dangerous information or opinions to be spread instantly to the vast majority of the world's population. Maybe we should change the laws…
Or, you know, probably not.
Agreed +Andrew D , but when was the last time you heard of a mass spooning?
NO I do not think the founders would have reworded it. They battled over the wording of that amendment. It had several wordings before the final. They opted for liberty over safety then and would IMHO operate in liberty over safety now. They knew guns kill people and children, they saw the British army do it. Their only defense was to be well armed in response. It does not protect my children to take the gun out of my hand and leave it in the hand of the criminal. The gun free zone at schools and theaters and other public gathering places only make them more dangerous, because, once again, if he is willing to murder little children he is probably going to be willing to break gun control laws. Stop using emotional appeal and think logically about it. A good argument uses all three, pathos (emotional appeal), ethos (the veracity of the speaker) and logos (logical suppositions).
+Sunny Walker no spoonings but there have been mass knivings, swordings, battings, dronings (oh sorry that is just the government,ergo why I would not mind having a bazooka, or stinger myself).
A gun toting American cop with no respect for human life can carry both bat and pistol and be proud! Have weapon. Will kill! WTF. They would kill you with a wet fish if they could!!!!
New York Yankee big hitter needs this home run to take the World Series. He steps up to the plate with an Assault Rifle.
I had a New York Yankee joke all ready to go, but I just couldn't do it. sad face.
+Jon Hobbs-Smith the US population is est.315,000,000. The UK is est.63,000,000. 5x more. The murder rate per 100,000 in UK is 2.1, the US is 5.6. 2 1/2x more. You guys aren't that far behind considering the gun ban in the UK.
Thanks for the perspective +Jason Haley 73% of statistics are made up. 🙂
Favorite weapon of choice in UK is a wet Kipper not a gun.
I worry that more harm is done by well meaning people who divert attention and resources to solutions that are no more likely to work than those used in the failed war on drugs.
+Torrey Jones That is one of the best ways I have ever seen it put.
+Torrey Jones Bravo, Bravo!!! "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
+Michael Koby Please refrain from actual use of logic. Thanks.
The right to keep and bear arms is as much of a right as freedom of press or right to not be illegally searched or the right to vote. When we start limiting our rights we open the door to limit other rights our fore fathers wanted us to have. One of my great grand fathers fought in the American Revolution so I think I would be disrespecting his memory.
Interesting though that handgun homicides are only about half per year as much in 2010 as compared to 1993
1993 : 13,981 handgun homicides
2010 : 6009 handgun homicides
Statistics show that where concealed carry permits are issued , crime diminishes. There are a great many more concealed carry permits now than there ever were in 1993. I am not saying that is the only reason for the decrease but i feel that the issuance of concealed carry permits to responsible citizens makes society safer and that it was contributory to the decrease in handgun homicides as well as homicides by other weapons .
Guns don't kill people, and more than forks make people fat
I'm a bit unsure which federal laws and regulations apply to car registration and driver testing and licensing. I was under the impression that those things were dealt with at the state level. I also had the notion that most of the state regulations are centered around the use of cars on public roads. The equivalent parallel to use of cars on public roads would be the use of guns in public and not the simple ownership of guns. I'm also unaware of any federal or state regulations that specifically prohibit the manufacture or ownership of automobile parts because no one needs more than basic transportation.
There is a lot of debate about gun control. Many people feel the government is trying to get handguns out of the citizens hands in any way and all the media hype about guns is away for the government to achieve this. What do you think ?
When people have intent, they'll find a tool. That's human nature. We always find a way to accomplish what we set out to do. Outlawing (or regulating) the tools used is a rabbit you can't catch.
I think a better focus on what creates the intent (for harm in this case), will get to the source of the problem. Cartoons to games to movies have death and dismay rampant.
Ever go to a race track and when you leave you feel the need to drive fast? Same concept. You leave the movie or game where your time is spent with guns blazing, that has to affect (especially young) people adversely.
Medical mistakes kill about 10, 000 times more people than guns!
People do realize that the Founding Fathers weren’t a group of Superheroes, right? Personally, I think they got the 2nd amendment wrong and we need to repeal it. Everything about it is outdated in the 21st century. It would be like cars, not a right, a privilege!
The difference (in terms of regulation) between guns and “x” isn’t which kills more people, it’s which is explicitly included in the [US] Constitution. Americans don’t have the *right* to drive a car, they have to get permission from the (state) government. But they do have a right to “keep and bear arms” which makes it an entirely different beast when it comes to regulation.
Now, whether it is currently a good or bad idea is completely separate from the question of why the regulatory landscape is different.
+Bj Farmer "When people have intent, they'll find a tool.".
That's such a BS argument! Lots of murders simply wouldn't have happened if there wasn't a gun around.
Having easy access to guns makes it much easier to kill people, especially a large number of people in one go. There aren't many alternatives when it comes to mass killings as it's quite hard to make a large bomb, poison a large number of people or use a knife/baseball bat etc. Arson is an option I suppose but still not easy to kill a large number of people without a lot of planning.
Anyone who doesn't believe that taking away guns isn't going to stop a lot of deaths is just kidding themselves because they love their guns too much. Every piece of evidence and data says you are just wrong.
Both
+Jon Hobbs-Smith Well, duh!!! But it is not about the tool but the intent to kill and the one who kills. When we speak of that we put the impetus to kill in the hands of the killer not in the instrument of that killing. And, once again, if you take away legal gun ownership the only ones who will have guns will be the criminals. There is still significant gun violence in "gun free" countries. So you leave the innocent unable to protect themselves and their families. But once again you fail to confront the real reason for maintaining an armed citizenry in light of the 2nd Amendment. Because the evidence is historically irrefutable. In the perfect world we would not have guns, but my friend this world is not perfect and will not be perfect until the Lord returns. So all of your arguments and desires will only provide a weak citizenry ripe for the picking of criminals, thieves, and despots. If you enjoy victimhood (which for some reasons liberals do) then by all means move to a country that is "gun free" and enjoy your gun free life.
+Debashish Samaddar And such regulations, when enacted in the past, have been struck down as unconstitutional. How do you KEEP if you can't BUY? How do you BEAR an arm you can't load with ammunition?
Furthermore, the logic espoused in your first paragraph is often used to try to limit the ownership of firearms to private militias, or state national guard members. Again, SCOTUS has stated clearly that such restrictions are not in keeping with the constitution as it was written, in the language it was written in, with the meanings of the words used at the time they were used.
I wonder witch, or yeah, how many Congressmen, and politicians, executives "in the know" etc. bought stock in big gun and ammo companies. Prior to fuelling you foolish masses bickering back and forth.
Here is what will happen: some mundane law that will be nearly impossible to enforce will get passed and there will be smilling faces on tv. You half wits won't even remember this whole conversation 365 days from now. When the government creates the next "State Of Fear."
I would rather be a responsable human being, and use the correct “tool” of the given job..Thank you.
1)Isn’t that “comprehensive” bs the same bs that you guys used to not enforce our borders these last four years? LOL
2)You are “ignoring the obvious” if you don’t ackknowlage that guns in law abiding Americans hands(to include those ugly personal defence rifles!) save hundreds of peoples lives each and every day.
Your perceived first amendment rights here on a modern computer just offended most all AMERICANS that believe in the Constitution..You think the founding fathers had an idea of such inventions to offend when the first amendment was drafted?!
Just because you seem to be ignorant of HISTORY does not make our founding father wrong. I wish you could have the memories of my parents, who grew up under Hitler’s COMPLETE tyranny..Maybe then you might have the mind to think twice before you paarrot your liberal keepers!