4 ms·
That reasoning would make sense but the most server limits on firearms are mostly applied to the least commonly used weapons for murders. For instance more than
by bko 4y ago
That reasoning would make sense but the most server limits on firearms are mostly applied to the least commonly used weapons for murders. For instance more than twice the number of people get murdered by knives in the US than rifles (rather broad category). Unless you're talking about quantity of deadly use vs non deadly use
Regardless i think it doesn't make sense to have a legal gray zone where it's legal but you can still be sued about it. Either make it illegal or certain behaviors illegal and sue for that but arbitrary lawsuits are not the answer
> https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in...
- boplicity 4y ago> For instance more than twice the number of people get murdered by knives in the US than rifles (rather broad category) That's just cherry picking data. You're comparing the broadest possible category "knives" with a subset of another category -- rifles are a subset of knives. You might note that certain categories of knives are regulated, and actually illegal in many states. Not all knives are the same. This is obvious. But your point ignores it.
- saghm 4y ago> That reasoning would make sense but the most server limits on firearms are mostly applied to the least commonly used weapons for murders. Well, yeah, if you consider the limits on rifles to be severe, why would you be surprised that they're used less for murder? If anything, that sounds like an argument that limits work and we should be limiting _more_ things