Subject:
|
Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Jul 2001 13:21:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
490 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> So what IS your point then?
What is yours?
>
> My point is that there are more dangerous things than guns.
Oh. I see.
> If I am not
> mistaken, one of the statistics sited here directly showed that most gun
> deaths are actually suicides...
Does that make it OK? What does that have to do with your point?
> and that the percentage of child deaths is
> miniscule.
It is still far too high in my opinion.
>
> You mention warplanes and bombs and bioweapons...
Not quite, but I will let it ride.
>
> Ghengis Khan flung plague-ridden bodies into walled cities...U.S. soldiers
> gave disese-ridden blankets to native american tribes...these are bioweapons.
>
> The colonial armies had cannons...yes...no?
>
> what is the point you are trying to make? are you against war in general,
> weapons of mass destruction, violence? What is your suggestion to prevent
> these things?
Read what Chris said. Read my reply. Think about it. You will see what my
point is.
>
> Personally, I am being very careful not to include my own belief on this
> topic, just a rationality that can argue against the banning of guns from
> the public...there are more dangerous and lethal luxuries than guns in our
> society such as automobiles.
So cars make guns ~OK~? Is that the best you can do?
> How is this trivializing the point?
Ah. You are not actually talking about the message you replies to. You are
talking about a message elsewhere in this thread. I see. In that case my
reply is:
So cars make guns ~OK~? Is that the best you can do?
Scott A
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > >
> > > > Nope. You are trivialising the issue rather than addressing the point. "The
> > > > forefathers" could not comprehend what weapons would do in a few hundred
> > > > years time (ie today). What do you think handguns will be like a few hundred
> > > > years from now?
> > >
> > > They could comprehend that the same ordnance _must_ be available to both the
> > > military and the civilians.
> >
> > Even tanks? Even fighter jets? Even chemical weapons? Even ICBM's?
> >
> > Scott A
> >
> > >
> > > Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) The only point you seem to be making is that guns kill and therefore they must not be tolerated. More than once you have asked me if this is the best that I can do. I think that I have done qite well in showing other perspectives of this (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| So what IS your point then? My point is that there are more dangerous things than guns. If I am not mistaken, one of the statistics sited here directly showed that most gun deaths are actually suicides...and that the percentage of child deaths is (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
182 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
