recreation, sustenance, and personal, self and national defense. Cars kill about 71 times as many people annually by accident than fatal gun accidents. There is your killing machine.
Your statistic is impertinent since I am not talking exclusively about accidental gun death. I'm slightly afraid being "on the road" for that reason. However, cars are not made to kill, yet guns are, and driving a car means accepting the risk, but going outside doesn't mean accepting that one might be unnaturally killed. "sustenance, and personal, self and national defense..." These are good reasons depending on where you are, but in a city you don't need guns for sustenance, and you don't need assault weapons for self defense. You definitively don't need a gun for entertainment, and unlike a car with the justification of timely travel, entertainment is a poor reason to allow such dangerous tools to be used by civilians in non-rural areas. Heck, a shooting has happened since this conversation began at Maryland High School!
25% of those killed are pedestrians, they didn't even agree to take the risk of driving. Going outside does mean accepting that one might be unnaturally killed as does staying home.
I live in a city and I hunt. Semi auto sporting rifles like AR-15 are not assault rifles and are suitable for personal defense. I definitely do need a gun for entertainment, that is what I like to do for entertainment. Maryland has all the strict racist gun control laws your heart could desire, thanks for proving they don't work. Too bad there was not an armed teacher handy huh?
"25% of those killed are pedestrians, they didn't even agree to take the risk of driving." They took the risk of going near cars. Again cars have a good reason to be owned by civilians and they are more regulated than guns. Regulate guns like cars, is that what you're implying with your argument? Everything you said after that is subjective. I'm not making emotionally backed arguments by saying killing machines or pointing out a shooting.
If I were to use the fact that I think killing animals for recreation is obscene as an argument it would have the same objective value as "I definitely do need a gun for entertainment, that is what I like to do for entertainment." Since I'm not using my vegetarianism to refute objective arguments, I would appreciate if you do the same with yours. You don't need guns for entertainment is an objective statement.
If you could only be entertained by guns, I doubt you'd be here. Lastly, yeah, what if teachers were armed? I'm sure there wouldn't be any confusion as to who the original shooter or shooters are in all the gunfire. I'm sure the stressed underpaid teachers won't use them for something else on their last nerve. I'm sure the cost of arming and training teachers like a militia won't cost you any in taxes... Point to an example, I don't accept hypothetical answers to something that isn't hypothetical.
recreation, sustenance, and personal, self and national defense. Cars kill about 71 times as many people annually by accident than fatal gun accidents. There is your killing machine.
wrong, guns are used for killing, duh!
occasionally, but not often enough for that to be their designed or intended use. The average handgun in America is used in a homicide only once every 10,000 years.
Your statistic is impertinent since I am not talking exclusively about accidental gun death. I'm slightly afraid being "on the road" for that reason. However, cars are not made to kill, yet guns are, and driving a car means accepting the risk, but going outside doesn't mean accepting that one might be unnaturally killed. "sustenance, and personal, self and national defense..." These are good reasons depending on where you are, but in a city you don't need guns for sustenance, and you don't need assault weapons for self defense. You definitively don't need a gun for entertainment, and unlike a car with the justification of timely travel, entertainment is a poor reason to allow such dangerous tools to be used by civilians in non-rural areas. Heck, a shooting has happened since this conversation began at Maryland High School!
25% of those killed are pedestrians, they didn't even agree to take the risk of driving. Going outside does mean accepting that one might be unnaturally killed as does staying home.
I live in a city and I hunt. Semi auto sporting rifles like AR-15 are not assault rifles and are suitable for personal defense. I definitely do need a gun for entertainment, that is what I like to do for entertainment. Maryland has all the strict racist gun control laws your heart could desire, thanks for proving they don't work. Too bad there was not an armed teacher handy huh?
"25% of those killed are pedestrians, they didn't even agree to take the risk of driving." They took the risk of going near cars. Again cars have a good reason to be owned by civilians and they are more regulated than guns. Regulate guns like cars, is that what you're implying with your argument? Everything you said after that is subjective. I'm not making emotionally backed arguments by saying killing machines or pointing out a shooting.
If I were to use the fact that I think killing animals for recreation is obscene as an argument it would have the same objective value as "I definitely do need a gun for entertainment, that is what I like to do for entertainment." Since I'm not using my vegetarianism to refute objective arguments, I would appreciate if you do the same with yours. You don't need guns for entertainment is an objective statement.
If you could only be entertained by guns, I doubt you'd be here. Lastly, yeah, what if teachers were armed? I'm sure there wouldn't be any confusion as to who the original shooter or shooters are in all the gunfire. I'm sure the stressed underpaid teachers won't use them for something else on their last nerve. I'm sure the cost of arming and training teachers like a militia won't cost you any in taxes... Point to an example, I don't accept hypothetical answers to something that isn't hypothetical.