Ownership to criminals. Awesome!
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
be evil. Gun bans will not end this. In some cases it may save some lives because less people might be killed, but in others, killing will be prevented by a private gun owner who uses it for defense.
Link: https://www.foxnews.com/world/china-children-killed-first-day-of-school-attack
Casualties would be the same, I guess, in your world.
If you want to compare mass murder stats between US and China, then let's do it. But don't pretend a knife-wielding psycho makes it OK for our psychos to have assault weapons somehow.
(no message)
Do you think there would be less violence in China if everybody had access to guns?
(Answer: No, of course there wouldn't.)
(no message)
steak knife.
But if we have guns, the Chinaman will stay in China and kill Chinese kids.
Drunk driving laws have not solved our problems and should be rescinded.
A bunch of killings in the inner city over the weekend? Let's make law abiding citizens register their guns.
Yeah. Make a law that doesn't affect the thing you want to stop...that only affects people who aren't out killing people in the inner city. Makes perfect sense.
"What are you doing?"
"I lost my keys."
"Where did you lose them?"
"Outside."
"Why are you looking in here?"
"Because the light is better in here."
Regulate where you can...not where it will make a difference. Just make your voters think you are doing something...keep them pacified and on the plantation...while infringing on the rights of others for no reason other than that you want to hold power.
(no message)
Your point is that deaths by bad people will still happen, even if we ban guns. Therefore we shouldn't ban guns. (You're implied logic, I believe)
If car wreck deaths still happen, even though we banned drunk driving. Then we shouldn't ban drunk driving.
If you had made the point that the benefit of banning guns is not worth the cost of losing the ability to have a gun, then your analogy might be apt. I didn't see you making the argument that the benefits of being able to own a gun are worth the number of extra deaths caused by having that ability.
I don't see the argument that owning a gun might prevent deaths as particularly relevant either. Even if you believed that owning a gun might prevent deaths in some cases, drinking alcohol will almost certainly never prevent a car accident.
(no message)
Your post made me post this.
Person drives drunk and kills 3 people. Stop everyone from owning cars. And/or, stop everyone from drinking alcohol. These examples are a little more analogous to the gun control debate.
I was responding directly to Baron's logic that if "X" protective measure does not prevent all "Y", then "X" protective measure is not useful.
"X" being banning guns (in China). "Y" being bad people killing people (in China).
In my analogy
"X" is banning drunk driving. "Y" being deaths caused by auto accidents.
I hope that helps. Have a nice day.
(no message)
(no message)
Will you be in disguise again?
the back.