Saturday, September 14, 2013

It costs too much to reduce something by 100%

It seems a lot of "pro-gunners" are clueless that the goal is not to eliminate gun violence, but to significantly reduce it.

Yes, other countries may still have gun violence, but it isn't the same amount of gun violence as the US.  Only third world nations have gun violence rates similar to the US.

22 comments:

  1. I reject the assertion that gun control means bad guys will have fewer guns. Washington D.C. and Chicago have had gun control extraordinaire for decades and there doesn't seem to be any shortage of bad guys nor guns in either city.

    But let's assume that gun control means bad guys with fewer guns for the sake of discussion. That assertion is irrelevant because gun control does not reduce the number of BAD GUYS and bad guys without guns use OTHER WEAPONS like knives and bludgeons (bats, pipes, crow bars, tire irons, clubs, etc.). Or bad guys simply form gangs to attack citizens.

    Please tell me how any man, women, or child (who will not have any weapons) will successfully engage an attacker or multiple attackers who have superior strength, numbers, and/or weapons such as knives and clubs?

    No, gun control will NOT reduce the carnage of violent criminals on citizens. In fact it guarantees that criminals' carnage on citizens will increase because citizens who have nothing but their bare hands cannot stop vicious, violent attackers.

    We must never offer up our daughters and wives to be rape victims in exchange for anything from "bad guys". The real solution is to minimize the number of "bad guys" walking around in society.

    - TruthBeTold

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps DC and Chicago would have been far worse if not for the feeble attempts we have made at proper gun control. Your next point was equally foolish. Bad guys with guns are more lethal than bad guys with knives. You know this but you pretend not to in the interest of supporting your cause. That's terribly dishonest of you.

      Delete
    2. Then why do we have big cities with good gun laws and murder rates much lower than Chicago and D.C.? Remember how there's no correlation between gun laws and homicide rates?

      Delete
  2. According to Mike, only wanting to reduce something to a lower level, but not being willing to fully eliminate it, makes one a cold-hearted bastard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NO, that's not at all what I say.

      Delete
    2. According to gun loons like NRA professor(?) Greg, just because a law, or regulation does not solve a problem 100%, it is useless and therefore only an encroachment on the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is open to limitations like any other Constitutional amendment.

      Delete
    3. You said that I was a cold hearted bastard for noting that we had reduced accidental deaths to the lowest level yet through better education and for insisting that we continue with that tactic rather than instituting your "proper gun control" which you thought would reduce accidents further than more improvements to education.

      Delete
  3. It would also cost far too many rights to reduce violence by the few percent that gun control offers. And the saying there is not necessarily true, since bad guys are often connected to less than legal import businesses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again the fake professor, professes death over any changes that will save lives. NRA crap.

      Delete
    2. Jim's got your number, Greg.

      Delete
    3. Let's see:

      1. I do, in fact, teach college English.

      2. I reject the idea that your proposals would save lives, but I don't "profess death."

      3. I don't pay the NRA much attention.

      So in three lies, how does he have my number?

      Delete
  4. ...and fewer good guys with guns.

    Which is a real problem, as opposed to what the makers of this poster claim- that just as many bad guys are armed in these other countries, but we should take comfort in knowing each bad guy doesn't have as many guns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's nonsense TS. By removing guns from the unqualified, either because they prove it in some way or due to a stricter qualifying process, we would disarm the unfit. You make it sound like a magic elimination of guns proportionately across the entire spectrum of gun owners. But the truth is truly responsible guys would continue to own guns even under the strictest regime.

      Delete
    2. New York City has a strict regime. How many legal gun owners are there in that fiefdom? That in itself shows your true goal is as much disarmament as possible, regardless of fitness.

      Delete
    3. And let's not forget that Mike just called DC and Chicago "feeble attempts" at gun control. Very few people own guns there- but that's just the beginning.

      Delete
  5. Ok, POOF!! All guns are now gone off the planet. Nobody has a single gun anywhere ever again.

    Where are all the bad guys? Still here!

    Whats next?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Remember the Star Trek episode, "Arena"? Everyone would immediately begin making new guns.

      Delete
    2. Are you a "Trekkie" Greg? I would have never thought. That has always been one of my favorite shows. All of the versions.

      Delete
    3. No surprise these gun loons are "Trekies." They certainly live in their own "fantasy" world.

      Delete
    4. LOL! Wow! Jim is so desperate to push buttons that he even wants to try to stir up a fight over Trek!

      so sad

      Delete
    5. I might have to delete Jim's comments after all.

      I have to take issue with Texas remark about all the versions. Only TOS rules. I think Greg may agree with me on that.

      Delete
    6. TOS is great, but TNG had some damn good episodes (and some stinkers), and DS9 was great once it found its stride.

      Voyager was crewed by a bunch of petulant children, and Enterprise was hit or miss with the hits not rising to the level of other shows.

      Delete