"If 5 people die at the same time by the same person or at different times by different people, there is NO DIFFERENCE!"
The difference to me is not so much the number, it is whether the person is killing someone that caused it (not saying deserved it) or if they are just randomly killing random people. That is a HUGE difference to me.
The person with a motive would still kill if they couldn't get a hold of a gun. The random crazy might not be able to, certainly not that successfully.
It isn`t that one death is ok but 12 at once isn`t. It is that you can kill one person at a time with basically ANYTHING, so getting rid of guns wouldn`t prevent those. You can`t kill 12 at once with very much except for a gun.
Friday, March 8, 2013 10:47:32 PM
HG - "9,000 gun deaths out of 300,000,000 people is a miniscule"
We were talking about mass killings, which is a FAR smaller ratio. Of course if one of those were my family I would care a great deal. Would you care? Really? You might feel sympathetic for a moment, then move on with your life. Most likely you wouldn't even know, and if you did you wouldn`t care. I don`t blame you.
Death comes with life. If 5 people die at the same time by the same person or at different times by different people, there is NO DIFFERENCE! You admit and accept that people are murdered one at a time and that is not preventable. Still you support legislation that is brought about, and fueled by emotion from a few mass killings. You support laws restricting weapons that are responsible for a tiny fraction of firearm deaths.
Friday, March 8, 2013 10:12:13 PM
In conclusion, forget assault rifles, ban handguns. I think the best way to prevent gun crime is to require that all civilian weapons be physically too large to ever be carried concealed. After all, no criminal is likely to walk around with a gun in plain sight. It'd be too suspicious.
Friday, March 8, 2013 9:19:11 PM
The origin of the word "infringe", especially 200+ years ago, means "break", not "limit". I wish people would get this straight. I'm not in support of a hugely-limiting law on firearms either, but if you`re allowed a single-shot muzzle-loaded pocket pistol and nothing else, your right to bear arms has not been infringed. Do I think we should be allowed more than that? Yes. Does the Constitution give me the right to own more than that? No. So enough with the constitution class from people that never took one.