Subj : Republicans & Trump To : Kostie Muirhead From : Lee Lofaso Date : Tue Sep 01 2020 21:57:35 Hello Kostie, >LL>Guns are not a "force equalizer", but a weapon of terror. >LL>There are more public mass shootings in the USA than in any other >LL>country in the world. >Do you care about shootings, or killings? They lead in civilian involved > shootings, but barely register in terms of overall violent crime or mass > killings as a whole. Japan has 0.04 deaths per 100,000 people killed by guns. That pales in comparison with how many people in the USA who are killed by guns. There are more public mass shootings in the USA than in any other country in the world. There is a reason why. That reason is easy access to guns. No real rules of any kind. Want a gun? Go to a gun show. No need for any background check. Or anything at all. Just tell the salesman you are old enough to buy one. That should do it. Assuming you've got the cash to buy it. Not sure if any of those dealers allow for buying on credit ... >LL>About 66% of US gun owners own multiple guns. >And? Completely irrelevant to anything. The more guns, and ammo to go with those guns, the more people that can be killed. Remember, there are more public mass shootings in the USA than in any other country in the world. >That's equivalent to changing a discussion about driving age to how many > cars are in a household. Americans love their guns. The more the merrier. >Data being related does not make it relevant. Well, it is far easier, and faster, to grab another (preloaded) gun than it is to reload. Especially when shooting at a large crowd. >LL>Guns are manufactured to kill people. Usually people who want >LL>to kill themselves, rather than others. >LL>Of course, only one gun is all that is really needed to off oneself. >LL>Along with one bullet. >LL>Personally, I like the Japanese way. No gun, or bullet, required. >Ok, if you're seriously comparing the morality of different ways to off > oneself I really have to wonder about your thought process. Some people are born killers. That is what they do. Kind of like their life's calling. And when their task has been completed, they always save one last bullet for themself. Except a few, who either didn't count right, or chickened out when it came to the end. >LL>If someone is intent on killing himself, he is going to find a way >LL>to do it. Even if it kills him. Same if someone is intent on killing >LL>someone else. But most kill themselves before they kill someone else. >Umm, Ok. That's kind of exactly what my point is - the implement is the last > thing you should be looking at if you actually want to affect change. > Changing access to implements without addressing root causes doesn't > actually change anything. Why did a white kid walk into a black church in South Carolina and mow down a bunch of black people saying their prayers? What kind of change did he have in mind? After the cops showed up, he gave himself up without a fight. Now he is likely to be executed. Did that make black churches any safer for black folks to pray in? No. Did that stop white racists from murdering black folks in cold blood? No. Did that change society's view on the death penalty? No. So why have a 2nd Amendment? What does it accomplish? >LL>Kind of hard to do a mass shooting with a knife. Columbine would >Mass *shooting* yes, mass *killing* no. People who get shot as opposed to some other way usually die. >There's mass stabbing and killings with other bladed weapons ALL THE DAMN > TIME in the world. The difference being more who are shot die rather than those who were not. >We've fairly recently seen a mass murder rivaling any shooting conducted > with nothing more than a rental truck. A rental truck is not a suicide bomber. Although a suicide bomber can be viewed as a mass murderer. >If you don't like guns, that's fine. But arguing that somehow changing the > second amendment in the US is going to stop all the issues with violence is > *at best* just a waste of energy that's far better spent nearly anywhere > else. There's major cultural, socio-economic, media, political, and mental > health access issues that do *actually* need attention and would *actually* > pay dividends. Gun control is at best just safety theatre in the same vein > as the overly intrusive TSA nonsense one has to deal with if travelling in > the US. Do you think that preventing a 90 year old woman from carrying too > much shampoo onto a plane actually does anything to prevent someone > crashing it into a building? I'll have to be really careful the next time I am on an airplane. Those 90 year-old women can be dangerous. Truly dangerous. With, or without, their shampoo. Or walking stick. --Lee -- If PBS won't do it, who will? --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb * Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360.0) .