A Ban on Wood Chopping Tools

Their desire to ban firearms has nothing to do with any real concern for reducing murders or other felonious assaults.

It’s all about control and a desire to “stick it” to the pro 2nd Amendment crowd.

1 Like

Sure. Sure.

Then mass shootings are just the 2nd amendment crowd sticking it to everyone else.

1 Like

Perhaps I’m wrong. In case I am then please explain how all of your solutions do nothing but restrict the rights of the law abiding and do nothing to address the actual problems which are a failure to enforce existing laws and get the mentally ill properly identified and adjudicated?

1 Like

Those problems can be addressed along with reducing the amount of damage that can be done by someone slipping through the cracks.

Crusius getting mental help is a solution that stops the El Paso shooting.

Crusius’s mother initiating an ERPO is solution that stops the El Paso shooting.

Existing laws could have dealt with him just fine had they been fully enforced.

Lmao yes I remember reading in History the wood chipping massacres of yesteryear.

Oh Charles you make me laugh.

The first school massacre in North American History was committed with knives, hatchets, bows, and arrows.

Many of the greatest genocides in world history were committed with edged weapons and clubs.

Technology advances with time. Shocking I know!

Not really.

So tools have gotten more lethal with technological advance?

Yes really. A bomb similar to the one used in OKC would likely have produced at least 3-4x as many dead and 10x as many wounded.

Then we agree that banning guns works.

Chopper, not chipper.

If your intent is to produce more casualties, yeah.

2 Likes

No, not unless your goal is to dramatically increase casualties.

2 Likes

Do you have data that correlates bomb casualties inversely with firearm access?
Do you have data that establishes a causation?

Bath School Disaster, OKC bombing.

If you want to create a mass casualty event explosives are the means of choice.

Around the world where firearms access is the most limited explosives are absolutely the means of choice for mass casualty events.

Simply review a list of Terrorist Attacks around the world and look at where bombings are the most common and look at how limited access is to firearms in those countries.

As for “causation” we have over 300 million firearms in the US currently in civilian hands and yet our violent crime rate has been cut by half since it peaked in the 90’s. During the same time lawful carry has expanded from just 8 states to all fifty so today we have in excess of 20 million people lawfully carrying going about their daily lives at any given time in the US not bothering anyone so obviously access to firearms is not causative.

This is not data that correlates firearm access inversely with bomb casualties.

This is a pretty clear “If/then” statement, so I’m interested to know if it’s supported by data

I told you where to look. Do you expect everyone to do the work for you?

You told me that bombs are good at killing a lot of people. You didn’t support the argument I quoted.

“Banning guns increases casualties.”

This would be pretty easy to support if it’s actually true. It’s not, of course.