johnnycee Wrote: Here in Philly, last night a man shot his bride of 9 days with a cross bow killing her, this was over what police described as a domestic dispute, people will kill other people with whatever is available and by any means possible.
This is true, but a person can't kill 20 children in a classroom or 49 people in a nightclub with a crossbow. They also can't kill 12 people in a movie theater or 32 people on a college campus. And they can't kill 14 people who work for the mentally ill or 13 people on an Army base. I can keep going on and on (and on and on) if you'd like...
Crossbows would realistically be able to kill one to two people. That's about it. I would feel terrible for those one or two people, but comparing the power of a crossbow to the power of a weapon of war is something called a red herring logical fallacy.
Chet Ruminski Wrote: There is no solution for timely results other than Hillary's lone wolf idea whatever that is. But 550,000 Hillary Lone Wolf Squad Agents patrolling the internet and streets looking for potential offenders would have a positive effect reducing all gun vioence.
johnnycee Wrote: So the problem lies with amount of bodies produced by the weapon, if this is so , why isn't the push for certain handgun bans since they are used more often in homicide's also more often used in multiple killings,
You know me johnny and you know I'm also against civilians being able to carry handguns outside of their homes.
As you know, the vast majority of gun homicides and suicides are done by hand guns. Hand guns literally serve no purpose other than killing human beings. That's why many (let's say most) countries don't allow their citizens to own handguns.
The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to own this gun or that gun. It was written when we didn't have a standing army and the weapon of choice was a single shot musket.The first words of the Amendment talk about a well regarded militia. Then the two different versions of our Constitution (the latter being the one the Supreme Court used in Heller) had no comma or a comma after Free state. A very divided Supreme Court ruled 5/4 that the version they liked had a comma and therefore the hand gun ban was unconstitutional.
That's why elections matter. If Gore won and was able to replace Rehnquist and O'Connor then Heller would never have happened.
"for timely results"
You left this out jaredsxtn.
johnnycee Wrote: Changing the ole document would really not change things much at all. fire arms have been around since China invented gun powder, and made fire lances, ( 1300 A.D.) which were really a hand cannon, which was attached to a spear , it took the Europeans to realize the usefulness of a small concealed hand gun, although they were of the ball & powder variety, nevertheless the hand gun was now a part of society, banning certain hand guns would only spark a underground market for self made hand guns, as a young man, it was not uncommon for a young man to have made what we called a "Zip Gun", which was pretty inaccurate and often did more harm to the shooter than the intended victim but it was rather simple to make, so banning would only make it difficult to own a hand gun,what should be done is to really find the root causes of the frustration and self loathing that exist in the minds of so many criminals, Is incarceration the answer,in some cases ,yes, but not all. Do I have the answer , no, but I do know that what we are now doing is not working, I also know that if we do nothing ,then we are doomed to be a society based on Might makes Right and the Rules.
Chet Ruminski Wrote:"for timely results"You left this out jaredsxtn.
Are you reading a different 2nd Amendment than me? Where does "for timely results" appear in it?
We aren't talking about the history of firearms. We are talking about how the NRA has a stranglehold on our Congress and refuses to let the will of the actual people be heard.
The vast majority of the population agrees that our gun culture is out of control and that something needs to be done about it. Instead of actually doing anything about it, our Congress is so stuck sucking the teat of the NRA and their coffers that they would rather thwart the will of the people than dare cross the gun industry.
And all the while we continue to be the only advanced nation on this planet that has this problem. Could it be maybe because other advanced nations realized that the vast majority of guns serve no purpose other than killing other human beings?
jaredsxtn Wrote:Chet Ruminski Wrote:"for timely results"You left this out jaredsxtn. Are you reading a different 2nd Amendment than me? Where does "for timely results" appear in it?