2 ms·

Accidents are not the same as intentional homicides, and should not be treated as such. You do have a point re: arms races between the police and the rest of t

Accidents are not the same as intentional homicides, and should not be treated as such. You do have a point re: arms races between the police and the rest of the country, but I'd argue that letting the police up the ante is a mistake. It's better for both sides to be armed equally, as this discourages officers from abusing their power (and vice versa). As for lumping states together, there's a reason you don't do that, and it's codified in something called the Scientific Method. If you want to measure the effects of a certain well on iklness, you must count the users of that well separately from users of other wells, even if the wells are right next to each other. If you lump two wells together, then you don't know which well actually caused the illness.

sabarn01 11y ago
Well only one kid was murdered in my high school but 3 died from accidents. We worry and track automobile accidents so why not gun accidents its all part of the picture. My point is that the measure should be how far a city is from a state with lax laws not just which state it is in.
- dawnbreez 11y ago
  I would argue that banning firearms is a highly inefficient way to deal with firearms accidents. Accidents are a direct result of ignorance. You tell newly-licemsed firearms owners that 3 times as many kids die in firearms accidents as thdy do in shootings, and they will (hopefully) keep an eye on their kids. As for how far a city is from a state with lax laws: Wouldn't the laws in the city itself have an effect as well? Some citizens follow the law, after all. One of the major arguments for free access to weaponry in general is that those who rob and kill and rape are usually willing to risk extended jail time in exchange for being able to use a gun to keep others from fighting back. The thing about threatening someone with a weapon is this: if they have a weapon, or a random bystander has a weapon and decides to interfere, then instead of forcing someone to cooperate, you've made the situation more dangerous for yourself (and everyone else).

sabarn01 11y ago

Well only one kid was murdered in my high school but 3 died from accidents. We worry and track automobile accidents so why not gun accidents its all part of the picture. My point is that the measure should be how far a city is from a state with lax laws not just which state it is in.

dawnbreez 11y ago
I would argue that banning firearms is a highly inefficient way to deal with firearms accidents. Accidents are a direct result of ignorance. You tell newly-licemsed firearms owners that 3 times as many kids die in firearms accidents as thdy do in shootings, and they will (hopefully) keep an eye on their kids. As for how far a city is from a state with lax laws: Wouldn't the laws in the city itself have an effect as well? Some citizens follow the law, after all. One of the major arguments for free access to weaponry in general is that those who rob and kill and rape are usually willing to risk extended jail time in exchange for being able to use a gun to keep others from fighting back. The thing about threatening someone with a weapon is this: if they have a weapon, or a random bystander has a weapon and decides to interfere, then instead of forcing someone to cooperate, you've made the situation more dangerous for yourself (and everyone else).