The sad thing about the US is when twenty toddlers are pureed with a firearm that instead of wanting to eliminate that weapon from society, that everybody wants to buy one.
I have to admit that I am waiting for the truly horrific even that will finally get people in the US so revolted by firearms that they actually do something about the problem.
Of course, people who say that there is a right to deadly weapons will argue that there's no problem.
After all, the incidents usually only take a few minutes and they are over: no problem.
"Of course, people who say that there is a right to deadly weapons will argue that there's no problem."
ReplyDeleteActually, I disagree, I believe that those who believe in the right to bear arms do believe there is a problem. However, like most people, we have the ability to recognize that the horror originates in the person, and not the tool they use.
That's true as far as it goes. But where you guys go wrong is in wanting to allow nearly unlimited access to firearms to those people.
DeleteToddlers that die from any cause of death -- including gunshot wounds -- is a problem and a tragedy. Perhaps the biggest tragedy is that we could eliminate just about all toddler deaths from gunshot wounds if all firearm owners received simple training and a little positive peer pressure.
ReplyDeleteSo let's make is cheap and easy to train armed citizens and actually eliminate the problem without telling our daughters and wives to "grin and bear it" when rapists attack with impunity.
- TruthBeTold
Is someone really telling their wives and daughters that? No. That's just inflammatory bullshit, which is really all you have.
DeleteWhat reasonable people understand is that a gun is not the best protection against rape. In fact it causes more problems for the owners than the problems it prevents.
Prove it, Mikeb.
DeleteThe problem is that to achieve what you demand, all guns would have to be removed, since any firearm or group of firearms could have been used.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, is Mikeb on vacation?
It's not an all or nothing thing. If a significant portion of the guns in the wrong hands were eliminated, we'd have significant improvement. What's your idea, if we can't eliminate 100% of the problem we shouldn't try to improve it at all?
DeleteNo. I deny that your proposals would have the effect that you claim.
DeleteThere goes the lying NRA dude (not professor) defending again the death of children is acceptable so he can have a gun. Despicable, but he proves that everyday.
ReplyDeleteLying about me and my arguments again?
DeleteDon't have to lie, you prove your lack of care of even one life everyday.
DeleteYou lied. Show me one example of where I defended the death of children as acceptable.
DeleteGreg you frequently defend the death of children. Every time you tell us how small the percentage of accidental deaths is, that exactly what you're doing.
DeleteNow you join in the lying, Mikeb. I have said that some two hundred accidental deaths of children per annum is not sufficient to justify sweeping gun control measures. That's not defending the death of children. That's saying that we shouldn't make radical changes in law and culture over something that is, in fact, rare.
DeleteYou base that on your ASSumption that gun control does not work. That is a lie. Traitor, and fake professor.
DeleteIt's not an assumption--your caps lock key was sticking, by the way. It's a demand for evidence. You know, critical thinking. I oppose gun control in the same way that I oppose the PATRIOT Act. Just because you put an emotionally appealing label on something doesn't make it work.
DeleteYou are the professor. Not my job to teach you, just because you have no clue what you are talking about, that's normal for you.
Delete"I have said that some two hundred accidental deaths of children per annum is not sufficient to justify sweeping gun control measures."
DeleteGreg, you can deny it all you like, but that statement is tantamount to defending the death of children. You're a monster.