US Rep. Giffords (Arizona 8) shot along with others at Tucson AZ event, fatalities...

[Bronzebow]

It's not a few bad apples. You simply ignore the vast numbers of gun deaths as normal, because, for you, they are. If as many people died in plane crashes and hijackings as are killed by gun crime/accidents every year, we wouldn't have any planes left.

Those are pretty strong statements, and seem to ignore the fact that guns are merely tools in the hands of people. What numbers do you have to back up this claim?

[ditchdj]

It's not a few bad apples. You simply ignore the vast numbers of gun deaths as normal, because, for you, they are. If as many people died in plane crashes and hijackings as are killed by gun crime/accidents every year, we wouldn't have any planes left.

You dont seem to get my point in that where does it stop when it comes to the government "protecting" us. Because whenever the government protects us from something, that means you're gonna lose some of your freedoms. You know, China likes to brag that they only have about a tenth of as much crime as we do, even though they have ten times as many people. So should our government follow China's lead in how it manages the populace????

[lordlundar]

Is there a more recent article than the one linked on the limit to ammunition clips? The one linked is from 1993. That just shows this isn't a recent problem.

Whoops! sorry. Forgot to check the date. That one was for a California attempt related to the assault rifle ban.

Here's the more recent one.

[Andara Bledin]

If as many people died in plane crashes and hijackings as are killed by gun crime/accidents every year, we wouldn't have any planes left.

First, that's just a silly comparison. Second, your numbers are way off. Speaking specifically about US statistics, fewer than 10,000 people die every year due to guns. It takes less than twenty 747s to reach that number. There are over 1000 747s built so far. Since the US is high in the top ten for gun-related deaths, 747s alone would cover the world for over a decade, and 777s would double that.

^-.-^

[Sleepwalker]

Given the costs of airplanes and trained personnel, we couldn't afford to lose those planes. Not and keep our fleets moving.

As for 'only' 10'000, ok, lol. As long as 'freedom' is protected, right?

What is freedom?

[Andara Bledin]

First, I never said "only 10,000." Please don't try to intimate that I'm trying to marginalize them. Unlike you're facetious "lol."

But, among those "fewer than 10,000" deaths, one should remember that over half of those deaths are suicides. Those deaths would not be prevented by a lack of guns.

If one really wanted to reduce mortality rates in the US, they would work to ban automobiles, the number one cause of violent death in the country and responsible for over five times the damage people manage with guns. Which is only slightly less ridiculous than the previous comment.

^-.-^

[Sleepwalker]

Mm. Yes. Ban automobiles. Then ban water. Also, all medications- also used for suicide. Cute little lie of an argument.

Thing is, you deleted all private handguns in the US tomorrow and jack shit would happen other than bullet sales taking a dive. Not so cars, water, and medication- many people would suffer and die without them. Hordes of handguns do not add to human welfare.

Handguns are used for killing human beings.

As for suicides, guess what? Just like homicides, they are facilitated by easy access to powerful weapons.

[Andara Bledin]

Pardon me while I roll my eyes and wait for more reasonable discourse.

^-.-^

[Sleepwalker]

Guess you ran out of answers. Copypasta some more!

[FArchivist]

Thing is, you deleted all private handguns in the US tomorrow and jack shit would happen other than bullet sales taking a dive.

That's not actually a good argument. If jack shit would happen other than bullet sales taking a dive, then there is no legitimate reason to ban handguns. If you could somehow prove a significant reduction in crime or in homicide by a deadly weapon, you might have something.

As for suicides, guess what? Just like homicides, they are facilitated by easy access to powerful weapons.

Fallacy. If this were the case, then homicides and suicides would be proportionately less in the UK. When compared proportionately, this is not the case; they at the point were they're having to ban tableware and hoping it affects the homicides and suicides.

As it is, your idea of banning handguns is unfeasible in the USA without either a) repealing the 2nd Amendment or b) reversing pretty much every case involving handguns that's reached the Supreme Court.

[BigGiant]

Sleepwalker-

The problem isn't guns. It is our culture. All you have to do is look to our friends to the North for that.

IIRC, they have more guns per capita than the US, yet far fewer murders, and murders by gun, specifically.

It is a tired cliche, but it is true: If you make guns illegal, only criminals will have them.

Abolition just plain does not work. Whether it is alcohol, drugs, or yes, even guns.

[HYHYBT]

Reading the plane analogy a bit differently: if enough planes were crashing to kill that many people each year, whether it be 20 747's in the US alone or a larger number of smaller planes, there would soon be no planes left because nobody would be willing to fly.

(I am explicitly not making an argument on any side of a gun debate here.)

[Hyena Dandy]

Mm. Yes. Ban automobiles. Then ban water. Also, all medications- also used for suicide. Cute little lie of an argument.

Are you... Even paying attention to yourself? She wasn't seriously advocating banning automobiles. She was saying that would have more of an effect than banning handguns.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I've been reading around about the proposed ban(s) of "High capacity ammunition clips" and just in itself it's pissing me off.

First of all, 20-30 rounds is the standard among modern firearms, high capacity would be 40, 50 or more (I know that Beta makes a double-drum for Glocks) 10 and under was standard for things like to Tokarev, P38 and M1911, designs that are well over 100 years old.

Moreover, since we know criminals are going to break laws anyway, why should law abiding citizens hamstring themselves? While typical gunfights last for only seconds and expend relatively few rounds, you don't see cops settling for less because you don't arm to what you probably need, you arm to what you might need.

But all that's beside the point, which is that it's atrocious that there are people trying to cash in on innocent deaths in every area of the political spectrum.

[crashhelmet]

I've been reading around about the proposed ban(s) of "High capacity ammunition clips" and just in itself it's pissing me off.

First of all, 20-30 rounds is the standard among modern firearms, high capacity would be 40, 50 or more (I know that Beta makes a double-drum for Glocks) 10 and under was standard for things like to Tokarev, P38 and M1911, designs that are well over 100 years old.

Isn't the standard issue clip for a Glock 19 only 15 rounds? Therefore, a 30 round clip would be considered high capacity.

Moreover, since we know criminals are going to break laws anyway, why should law abiding citizens hamstring themselves? While typical gunfights last for only seconds and expend relatively few rounds, you don't see cops settling for less because you don't arm to what you probably need, you arm to what you might need.

So let's just get rid of all laws. Let's make this an anarchistic state and leave it to the "Survival of the Fittest."