Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
I don't think buckman or anybody else disagrees that high capacity weapons can increase the body count compared to lower capacity handguns. There might be a disagreement that they pose a greater danger. All guns pose the danger of being used to kill. Greater numbers of killed does not increase the danger, it, as you say, increases the body count. I doubt that the parents of children killed by a handgun think to themselves that, "phew, it's a good thing the guy didn't have a high capacity weapon or he might have killed some other kids. Hey Jim, congrats, you're kid was not shot. I feel good for you." On the other hand, parents of kids who weren't shot might well be grateful. But the danger that they could have been the ones killed was there, by hand gun or rifle.
Your hypothesis is that cops chose rifles because they know that in most situations, [not just extremely rare ones] it's easier to kill bad guys with rifles instead of handguns. And that if that's true, it also holds true for bad guys. But then, as I believe buckman implied, that it would also hold true for civilians defending themselves against bad guys. Why would we allow police to defend with rifles but not allow civilians to do so? Aren't civilians killed in far greater numbers than police?
It would seem that if the number of kids killed in rare instances is enough to ban high capacity weapons, that there is an even greater need to ban hand guns which are used to kill, on an almost daily basis, many more people, including children.
You keep wanting to have a "serious conversation" on the subject, as if such conversations have not occurred. If the conversation is simply about the number killed, the acceptable number would have to be less than one. Which guns would be allowed under that number?
|
"I don't think buckman or anybody else disagrees that high capacity weapons can increase the body count compared to lower capacity handguns"
ThenI can only assume you aren't reading his responses.
"If the conversation is simply about the number killed, the acceptable number would have to be less than one. "
Wrong. You need to read what I'm actually saying. It isn't only about reducing deaths. It's about reducing deaths in accordance with our constitution. That's a big difference. I'm not saying that any ban that reduces deaths is good. I'm saying that if it's not trampling the constitution, let's talk about it.
Automatic machine guns are banned. That ban has been deemed constitutional. What's so crazy about extending that ban to, say, high capacity magazines?
"Greater numbers of killed does not increase the danger, it, as you say, increases the body count."
If it increases the potential body count, it certainly increases the danger to society as a whole. I'm shocked you'd miss that.
"I doubt that the parents of children killed by a handgun think to themselves that, "phew, it's a good thing the guy didn't have a high capacity weapon or he might have killed some other kids"
Why, then, are families of victims so often leading the charge to ban military-style weapons? If what you say is correct (that they don't care about any other kids), and their kid is already dead, why should they give a rat's azz. Wow. You're saying that parents who lost their kids, have zero vested interest in making sure it doesn't happen to someone else's kid. That's one of the stranger things I have seen you post. I could not disagree more.
I survived a war. Using your logic, I have no reason to be concerned about what happens when other teenagers are sent into compat? I have no reasons to call for rules to help future soldiers? That's what you think?
Seems unbelievably self-centered to me.