(July 8, 2011 at 2:54 pm)Minimalist Wrote: 30,000 people a year die because of guns in the US, Shel. That's not even beginning to look at the number who survive to one degree or another. How many Americans were killed with biological weapons last year? Or swords???
Haha, I am not saying they are commonly used, Min. I am saying that, in the absence of guns, these weapons would be viable options for murderers. Now, if the argument was about accidental death, I could understand the contention. However, when it comes to murder, the weapon really becomes irrelevant to me. Serial killers often kill more than one spree killer with a gun and they rarely, if ever, use guns.
Now, perhaps not in the U.S., but there are places where sword like weapons are favored, particularly for cutting off limbs and leaving people to die in the desert.
(July 8, 2011 at 2:54 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I get your point but I think you are being a little disingenuous.
I disagree. I simply see the facts differently than you do. It doesn't mean I am ignoring them. Perhaps I am so utterly disgusted with the human race in general that I find removing one weapon as a means to save people as laughable. No one will be saved. People are nuts.
(July 8, 2011 at 2:54 pm)Minimalist Wrote: People die in car crashes all the time but at least we take steps to license drivers and register cars. Second-hand smoke is cited as causing 3,000 deaths a year ( a tenth of gun carnage ) and you would think it was a major health scourge. [/i]
Now that is another argument altogether. I am all for regulating gun ownership to any degree necessary (short of . . . ), but I disagree with removing guns from civilian hands altogether. That gives me the willies. Only criminals and law enforcement having guns is a fucking nightmare.
