When firearms can make the choice of pulling their own triggers, then they become the problem. Just like any tool, it takes on the characteristics and mannerisms of its wielder.
Yeah, sorry -good philosophical argument, but bullshit. Go ahead and trade your toothbrush for your sidearm, and see which one is more dangerous in your mouth.
I'm not saying "kill yourself" -I'd just say that if I meant it, but spend a second considering that swap. I bet you think it's a bad idea, and I bet why is because you are pretty sure that your sidearm is more dangerous then your toothbrush irrespective of what you intend.
If your toothbrush goes rogue you might scratch your gums or choke on it.
If your gun does anything
but remain utterly inert you'll be lucky
to "merely" call 911 with a blown-out cheek.
I'm pretty sure we had the same conversation about Doctors a while back, and that while Doctors might unintentionally cause more deaths then firearms there's just no truth in believing that a gun is more useful for relieving head pain then a neurologist^.
Unless you're planning suicide.
Also when that poor 9-year-old girl shot and killed that instructor at that range was she intending to kill him? What are the "characteristics and mannerisms" of a Uzi wielded by a little girl doing target shooting?
Regarding Chicago's gun control laws, she was referring to the crossborder guns when she stated the murders were committed by guns owned by someone other than the perpetrator.
In regards to Afghanistan, she was referring to the war in the country. People in Chicago are dying by gunfire more often than people engaged in war in that country.
Low income neighborhoods are not specific to one racial identifier.
Chicago: she didn't say that. She referred to Chicago's attempts to control weapons locally, or else citing Chicago as a specific case has no meaning besides that illegal guns contribute when introduced from less controlled areas.
...which would negate her point about Chicago being specifically a case of firearms law control failure.
Chicago's laws effect Chicago's weapon's sales. Conflating that as failure with unaffected outside sources is without merit.
Afghanistan: still has almost nothing in common with any salient American example.
I got her point; it was just weak.
Afghanistan's not the Russian Front circa 1943, it's a country in which a small group is resisting a foreign presence with bombs and snipers and in quieter years the local sports are tribal violence and soccer.
It's murder rate is 6.5 per person and ~1,948 in 2012 compared to the US's 4.7/14,827.
We're also nearly ten times
the size of that craphole, so that one particular city would have more deaths total but less per capita is no mystery.
Chicago's city population is 2.7 million, with about 10 million in the whole metro area. It, by itself
, is a third the size of Afghanistan. No shit
more people die there.
Chicago also a 32% Black city from which hailed our much-reviled Black President, A-Black-Obamination aka Blackenstein's Monster.
So you'll forgive me, or maybe you won't, if I think deliberately bringing up that "urban poor people do the most killing in That Black City" is a dog-whistle to the ...uh... dog-eared..?
Interestingly enough, the Declaration of Independence not only "of the People, by the People, for the People", it also says the government shall do nothing without the consent of the governed.
Yes, true, I concur -do you have an example of it doing otherwise?
The 2nd Amendment is about the right of the citizens of this country to stand up against tyranny and repression within our government. Why? Because we had just finished fighting a war against the very same thing.
Actually no it was a concession demanded by the slave holding states to permit slave hunting patrols to be legally armed so they could capture runaways.
And that tyranny and repression was inflicted by a colonial power. I'm not seeing how that's a local form of fascism, especially not in a nation that just ejected said colonial power.
If you don't think that is going on now, then check out the overmilitarization of law enforcement that grown in the last 5-10 years, not to mention the Patriot Act (aka Repeal the 4th Amendment Act) or the National Defense Authorization Act (aka let's get rid of the 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments). We'll see if Obama resigns the Patriot Act up for another 4 years like he did in 2011. He did sign the NDAA into place.
Now I'll understand if you don't read my posts, but trust me that I'm quite aware of, and agitated by, Police Militarization.
But again, point to this being done illegally.
I sat through, and quite paid attention, to blondie's speech.
I can do those.
...unless they're just like 5 minutes of screaming white noise which would both make a liar out of me and be a rather cunning strike on your part.
^C'mon now, Desertpuma. We ain't pals, but I give you enough credit to believe that you recognize that a firearm, the modern evolution of modern history's most potent killing tool, is in fact inherently dangerous
You didn't have a reply, but I honestly credit you with noticing how that stabbing at that rural Chinese school didn't produce any deaths in spite of it's frenzied nature. I'm pretty sure there are no comparable US school shootings in which 22 people were injured and nobody died.
Soldiers do not deploy into a warzone armed with pencils and Payday bars because convicts with grudges and nut allergies are also fatal. We didn't build nuclear-tipped ICBM's because they won a coin-flip between that and MIRV-dispensed irregularly manufactured gummi bears as the tools of MAD.
That's logic as basic as water is made up of a oxygen molecule bonded to two hydrogen*. You and MilitiaJim and anybody else can attribute the intent to kill on the wielder of a weapon, but nobody gets shot without a gun.
*if anyone doubted that Krensky is smarter then I am, they shouldn't.