4 ms·
Fine, /s/children/people. Argument is precisely the same. And you have less of them dying of gunshots wounds by having fewer guns/ammunition. That won't stop kn
by bonaldi 14y ago
Fine, /s/children/people. Argument is precisely the same. And you have less of them dying of gunshots wounds by having fewer guns/ammunition. That won't stop knife crime, sure, but let's revisit that discussion when as many people are dying of knives in the US as die of gunshot wounds.
And, yes, addressing the gun culture will have to be a component of this. But violent cultures can be changed. The US is a past master at it -- look at the post-WWII reconstruction it orchestrated in Japan.
- sarvinc 14y agoI agree that if we limit firearms we limit harm from firearms. Tell me why we should stop at firearms? Fewer children would meet pedophiles online if we didn't have an Internet. Fewer people would die in car accidents if we didn't have cars. 35.9 million people died within a year of being in a car accident [0]. Lets revisit this discussion when as many people are dying of gunshot wounds in the US as die of a car accident. [0] www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf
- bonaldi 14y agoIn all these cases, you measure benefits against costs. Costs (eg negative impact, not price) of limiting firearms: low, mostly political. Costs of limiting cars: catastrophic, economy-devastating. That's why we should stop at firearms.
- sarvinc 14y ago> Costs (eg negative impact, not price) of limiting firearms: low, mostly political. Costs of limiting cars: catastrophic, economy-devastating. Not sure where you get the idea that the cost of limiting firearms is low or that the cost of limiting cars is high. Mass transportation, tele-communication etc. seem like viable solutions and because "for the children." > That's why we should stop at firearms. That's why we should stop giving our rights and freedoms away.