Knife bans??

[Gregg]

I think everyone agrees with that. Ultimately, some people just conclude that the cost in lives is not justified by the benefits. I'm sure you have a point at which you would say there are too many deaths and agree that something should be done.

I think we have well passed that point with drinking and driving.

[Ken]

I have shown that banning semi-automatic rifles isnt a real solution, because they are not responsible for even close to half of the gun deaths. .

Unfortunately that's not a salient point. Even if it stops just 1 gun death, unless there's a valid argument on the other side, the fact that they are responsible for less than half does not rule out action.

An analogy. Lets say, for the purposes of demonstration only, that you have 3 kids. Sadly you lose one to a car accident, one to breast cancer, and one to prostate cancer. Later, you find out that there was treatment for the breast cancer that your daughter could have had that would have potentially saved her life -- would you take solace in the fact that it would affect less than half of your kids, so not a big deal??

[TranaGreg]

I have done so in an attempt to show that guns are not the problem - but that the actions of people are.

But you also have to acknowledge - and you haven't addressed this point when it had been raised in the past - that the tool dramatically magnifies the impact of those actions of those people, whether it's a handgun, semi automatic gun, fully automatic weapon, or a weapon of mass destruction. The outcome is absolutely related to the use of the tool.

The actions of people are absolutely part of the problem. And guns are absolutely a part of the problem as well.

[gcstomp]

bald, I am not trying to be insulting, but what you state as fact, is not, and though you state something often, argument is not then more compelling an argument.
In past threads:
I have shown that guns are safer than is commonly believed by using statistical data. (No, you have said many times we have 300, or maybe 500 million guns, and that we only have 36000 deaths a year means we get this tiny fraction, you usually state it as 1 in 1000 of 1000 of 1000 or some similar fashion. This trivializes again and again the massive number of annual deaths, and somehow is a safety on a per weapon basis. Remember many weapons are in hands of a small number of people. The fact a gun owner owns 2000 guns and only 1 was used to kill someone is terrible argument to safety per gun.)

I have shown that banning semi-automatic rifles isnt a real solution, because they are not responsible for even close to half of the gun deaths. (There are hundreds times more handguns than semis, do we really need it spelled out that doesnt have anything to do with deadly nature of semis vs handguns)

I have also shown that hand guns are used as frequently if not more frequently in "mass shootings" than the scary "assault weapon" (again, hundreds times more handguns than assault type weapons. But you are flat out wrong when talking mass killing events of say 10+ people, the kind of event that has parkland kids causing mass gatherings at lawmakers offices. We could say more here but this is a head shaker that you keep repeating this one)

I have used statistical data and facts to support my contentions. (You have repeated numbers without accepting basic truths. 2nd amendment wasnt handed down by god, it must be subject to evolving reality, such as changing from musket to machine gun. Also simple literal reading of entire amendment makes it impossible short of ignoring the noun in the sentence, the militia, and filling in your own meaning.

For someone who keeps repeating they do not use or own a gun, you merely want to stand firm to your rights, you seem stubbornly blind to our more important rights being trampled every day in lieu of one that you only abstractly practice.

[baldgriff]

But you also have to acknowledge - and you haven't addressed this point when it had been raised in the past - that the tool dramatically magnifies the impact of those actions of those people, whether it's a handgun, semi automatic gun, fully automatic weapon, or a weapon of mass destruction. The outcome is absolutely related to the use of the tool.

The actions of people are absolutely part of the problem. And guns are absolutely a part of the problem as well.

I have stated previously in another thread

"Guns are created for the purpose of severely damaging what you are shooting at. The purpose of rifle ammunition (when used correctly) is to do sufficient damage - enough to stop wild animals from getting away. If I am shooting a deer or antelope or other wild animal I dont want to have to track it for miles and miles. So I need a weapon and ammunition big enough to kill it. "

Are you asking for "safer" bullets or "safer" guns?

[baldgriff]

For someone who keeps repeating they do not use or own a gun, you merely want to stand firm to your rights, you seem stubbornly blind to our more important rights being trampled every day in lieu of one that you only abstractly practice.

My apologies, but I am not clear which right you are referring to?

[Lurker765]

I have stated previously in another thread

"Guns are created for the purpose of severely damaging what you are shooting at. The purpose of rifle ammunition (when used correctly) is to do sufficient damage - enough to stop wild animals from getting away. If I am shooting a deer or antelope or other wild animal I dont want to have to track it for miles and miles. So I need a weapon and ammunition big enough to kill it. "

Are you asking for "safer" bullets or "safer" guns?

How about a magazine that only holds 5 bullets? Do you shoot more than five times at each deer before having to reload and shoot at it again?

[TranaGreg]

Are you asking for "safer" bullets or "safer" guns?

yes.

and as I have posted in another thread, for contrast purposes ...

A major focus of C-17 was the control of military and paramilitary firearms. It created orders prohibiting or restricting most paramilitary rifles and some types of non-sporting ammunition. It prohibited firearms that had been converted to avoid a 1978 prohibition (exempting existing owners), and it prohibited high-capacity magazines for automatic and semi-automatic firearms. (It limited handguns to ten rounds and most semi-automatic centre-fire rifles to five rounds.)
...
Many common magazines are manufactured to hold more rounds than law allows in Canada. These magazines must be permanently altered so they no longer hold more than the number of rounds allowed by law.

FWIW, automatic guns are actually allowed up here. But of course, we have to register certain guns and require background checks and even safety training.

[TranaGreg]

My apologies, but I am not clear which right you are referring to?

just guessing but I think he's referring to the right to live.

[Fresno Bob]

Isnt it possible that people can shoot guns recreationally, just for fun, just to destroy cans, fruit, old cars, or whatever other target that they choose to shoot up. Recreational shooting is fun for a number of folks and for those purposes it may be fun to shoot as many bullets as you can just for fun. As long as they are doing it safely, why do we care that they have a pistol grip or a 25 round magazine?

I have attempted to demonstrate to you in another thread that guns are way more often used correctly and do not kill people. Unfortunately, that fact seems to fall on deaf ears or ears that just dont care.

there are people that enjoy drag racing, yet we do not allow dragsters on the street.

[Gregg]

there are people that enjoy drag racing, yet we do not allow dragsters on the street.

There are people who like to drink and drive. We allow that. Seriously why are you gentlemen not on the band wagon for zero tolerance for drinking and driving?

I am not suggesting outlawing alcohol. But what about no drinking and driving? There would never be another child or family killed by drinking and driving.

[Gregg]

there are people that enjoy drag racing, yet we do not allow dragsters on the street.

Have you not heard about the 700 plus hp Hell Cat or 650 hp corvette or 300 hp six cylinder cars that everyone has?

What about motorcycles?

[Fresno Bob]

Have you not heard about the 700 plus hp Hell Cat or 650 hp corvette or 300 hp six cylinder cars that everyone has?

What about motorcycles?

street legal with safety mandates like airbags and crumple zones for the cars, unlike dragsters. Also no parachute brakes

[Hornsby]

There are people who like to drink and drive. We allow that. Seriously why are you gentlemen not on the band wagon for zero tolerance for drinking and driving?

I am not suggesting outlawing alcohol. But what about no drinking and driving? There would never be another child or family killed by drinking and driving.

This is NOT true, we do NOT allow drinking and driving. The penalties are getting stiffer every year, as they should...There is zero tolerance for DD...

[Gregg]

This is NOT true, we do NOT allow drinking and driving. The penalties are getting stiffer every year, as they should...There is zero tolerance for DD...

No we allow drinking and driving. We do not allow drunk driving.