I believe guns surpassed it or came very close this year thus far.
But honestly guys, at the end of the day, what is the societal goal here? Is it to maximize long-term utility without sacrificing short-term utility? If the goal is in fact utilitarian, then no one is going to argue that cars don't do more good than bad. With guns? I honestly am not sure. Some policies will maximize utility more than others- I am just not sure which ones are best, although there are some relatively cheap and low-risk options, that might help increase it relative to current policy.
I could believe road accidents / casualties but he said road rage which to me means someone losing their temper if they are 'cut up' by someone else, leaping out of their car and bashing the other driver...or presumably shooting him? ( sorry, couldnt resist that!)
I understand that. I bring up that point all the time. But you have to weigh the risks in a proper analysis. Is it worth number x accidents plus the gun crimes we have every year to hedge against that tail risk by letting w people have y number of z type of guns or is there a way you can change w, y, and z in a way that still allows a sufficient hedge against the tail risk while bringing down x? Or maybe we can even re-form that whole question with a new solution on how to hedge against the tail risk of needing to overthrow government.
When it comes to road rage, guns are simply convenient. I've heard of people totaling their cars just to run someone who'd slighted them off the road.
Because it is undeniable the benefit that cars bring society. It heavily outweighs the risk of death from a car. The question that much of the American people are now asking and the question that much of Europe has asked in the past is, do guns in homes bring more benefits than these costs- the costs of shootings like CT.
Yet it had nothing to do with guns in the home. What needs to try and be solved is why he snapped. Once you get an idea about that if it was mental illness issues or something else. Then you figure out how he got the weapons though we pretty much all have an idea there.
Again it is the owner of the weapons fault for failing to lock up the weapons properly. Especially if it was mental illness.
Again he could have went into that school with a knife did just as much damage or a bat. What people are focused on is the tool not the person.
You can't deny that if the mom didn't have them at home or if she knew to lock them up better so only she could access them, that this might not have happened...
And no he could not have done as much damage with a knife or a bat- it would have been exponentially harder and in turn exponentially less likely.
Not downplaying the mental health issue here by the way, just saying why the gun regulation argument has a potentially valid point (not that I necessarily agree with that either).
Oh I don't disagree with you that if she did not have them at home. Though only if the son was truly mental that is where I will agree with you. If she knew he was mental then yes she should have taken better precaution steps.
I do disagree with you here. A knife could have killed all those kids. There were no men shot it was all women. It does not take a rocket scientist to slice someones throat, or to stab a person fatally with one blow. Hell you can google it.
The victims were all women 6 and 20 5 and 6 year olds so I beg to differ he could have achieved it.
My point is they are focusing on the tool. They should focus on why he did it then you look at the tool.
A knife takes longer to use for one. It also leaves a blind side when you are knifing someone. I don't know about you, but if I was head to head with a killer or as in this instance many of us were head to head with 1 killer, I would rather him have a knife than a gun because I know my chances would be much greater in that scenario. A gun is more deadly than a knife.
Spoken from no experience, guns are not as deadly as knives. I would much rather be shot than stabbed. Most of the training I recieved was how to protect against a stabbing, very little about shooting.
A gunshot has to hit in a fatal or "kill zone" to be fatal. A knife is a much bigger object creating a much larger hole.
I have investigated dozens of shootings only two were fatal, seven stabbings six were fatal.
Are you seriously suggesting it is easier to murder 27 people with a knife than a gun?
Yet you are talking as a man. We are talking about most likely inexperienced in violence woman and children. I been in quite a few scraps in my day and had a knife plant through my hand.
He very well could have taken 6 women with minimal effort and 20 children with next to no effort. I am talking from experience from carrying and using a knife. It is not all that hard and very easily concealed. He could very well take out 6 women with little effort sorry it is a fact.
You weren't talking about that. You said you would rather be stabbed than shot. Are you 27 people now.
Collect your thoughts prior to responding or use these bait and switch tactics.
again your terrible debate skills have encumbered your intelligence. I said typically stab wounds are more fatal than gunshot wounds, you out of nowhere pulled this nonsense not even related to your first statement in which I responded to.
Once again you have successfully made a fool out of yourself. I have no interest in continuing this discussion because of your inability to hold onto a thought.
This is a bait and switch really purile tactic. He was saying that a gunshot wound is more lethal than a stab wound. That isn't true, he was caught in a fabrication and he then said this vapid statement which had nothing to do with the discussion.
nobody should even entertain this nonsense.
Similar threads
